What would refute creationism?

[Brian2]

No, it is not the evidence. It is the claims. Evidence would have to come from somewhere else. I mean, you don't think Spiderman is real because comic books say he lives in New York City, and New York City actually exists, right? Or when historians discovered that the city of Troy actually existed, that didn't mean that Apollo is real, right? Why is it any different for your stories?

There are mundane claims in the Bible that can be easily verified, like the names of people or cities or whatever. But that doesn't make the extraordinary miracles claims riddled throughout the book true, just because they're in the same book. You'd actually have to verify those somehow. And I'm not sure how you'd do that.

You have missed the point. What I am pointing out is Talmudic evidence (not the same book) from the enemies of Jesus, the Jews, that Jesus was a miracle worker, sorcerer.
But there is no burden of proof for the believer anyway. Either you believe or you don't.
Typical skeptic. Prove it or I won't believe it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or even, prove it or it is not true. (WT)
OK, don't believe it.

 

[Brian2]

Somebody should tell the God of the Bible it wasn't a worldwide flood then:

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

How many times do I have to repeat that "earth" can be translated "land".

 

[Jose Fly]

How many times do I have to repeat that "earth" can be translated "land".

But there are other parts of the story that indicate the authors believed it to be a worldwide event.

In Genesis 6 we see things like...

"So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people..."

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

And why bother taking "two of every kind" onto the ark if the flood was only local?

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To you it would be the fallacy of incredulity. For me it is not thinking, it is intuition, faith.

It is still a logical fallacy. Faith is not a pathway to the truth. Intuition is often distorted by personal prejudices and is not all that reliable either.

Who said I have a limitation in that way. I could understand it fully and still believe God had to have created it all. Atheists/skeptics seem to think that once science has worked out some sort of mechanism for how things work, that that eliminates God or the need for God or faith and intuition that it had to have been a creator who did it.
I know that you say you have good evidence and critical thinking but it leads nowhere really except to a point where you say "the gap is not that big, a leap of faith to believe science has found what it has not really found is OK and nobody will notice"
So what you believe about nature and the universe is just like a religious faith and it is really an argument from incredulity. Science has nothing when it comes to creation, you believe it happened naturally, it must be a leap of faith from what is known to what you believe about nature. And this is based on your lack of belief in a God. I can't believe that a God exists who could do that.

No, atheists do not tend to lack a belief in God because of that. It is usually the logical fallacies and self contradictions of almost every faith (and definitely in Christianity) that causes them to lose a belief in God. Atheists tend to support the sciences because they want to know. Knowing is more important than believing.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

It is true that I cannot say that nobody has proven me wrong so therefore I am right. That is not what I am doing. That however is the demand of atheists/sceptics. You say, "the burden of proof is on theists, theists have none so we must be right". It does not work like that, sorry. I have faith and you also have faith in what you believe about creation etc.
You just don't like admitting you have faith and no evidence that what you believe is true.

No, again, that is a strawman. What people tell you is that without evidence there is no reason to believe in your God. Do you know how many Gods there are out there? By the logic you are using it seems that you should believe in every God.

And no, you have faith. We do not. Your first key to losing faith and learning is understanding the concept of evidence. I keep harping on this because it is so important. Creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. They cannot afford to.

 

[Brian2]

But there are other parts of the story that indicate the authors believed it to be a worldwide event.

In Genesis 6 we see things like...

"So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people..."

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

And why bother taking "two of every kind" onto the ark if the flood was only local?

Seems pretty clear to me.

True there are parts that are hard to understand with a local flood, but what you quoted could be translated. "I am going to bring floodwaters on the land to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breathe of life in it."
This could be understood as being a local flood imo.
The flood could have been a very large local flood in that area covering thousands of squ miles. The local animals would need saving and putting back onto the land there.
Possibly Noah and family could have walked away but maybe God wanted to speak to the people there with the story of Noah building a boat because God was going to send a flood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But there is no burden of proof for the believer anyway. Either you believe or you don't.

Believers / makers of claims always have a burden of proof concerning the claims being believed / made.

What you are actually trying to say is that believers (in your view) simply don't care to meet that burden.
Not quite the same thing.

Typical skeptic. Prove it or I won't believe it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or even, prove it or it is not true. (WT)

Who says any of these things?

 

[Brian2]

It is still a logical fallacy. Faith is not a pathway to the truth. Intuition is often distorted by personal prejudices and is not all that reliable either.

Well yes I suppose there is some logic in there as well as the intuition and faith.
Verified evidence certainly can be a pathway to the truth but can also be a pathway to error, depending on the assumptions used in the interpretation of the evidence.
Faith and intuition can be reliable pathways to the truth.
The Amazing Secrets of Woodpecker Tongues.

I see it as the product of a design. I don't see that science knows for sure, any different.

No, atheists do not tend to lack a belief in God because of that. It is usually the logical fallacies and self contradictions of almost every faith (and definitely in Christianity) that causes them to lose a belief in God. Atheists tend to support the sciences because they want to know. Knowing is more important than believing.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

Because of that lack of belief in a God there is a willingness to leap to conclusions such as "abiogenesis has been shown to be true" or "creation of the universe did not need a God according to science" etc.
These leaps are leaps of faith and it is because of your lack of belief.
So then these leaps of faith tend to reinforce your lack of belief. So your faith reinforces your unwillingness to have faith.
I hope I keep learning from mistakes in logic and contradictions I make but really an error that many Christians make is to listen to atheists and skeptics and believe everything that they say.
You said "knowing is more important that believing". Maybe, sometimes. But you have not knowledge that there is no God or that abiogenesis is true or that God is not needed for the creation of the universe. You believe those things and science does not tell you.

No, again, that is a strawman. What people tell you is that without evidence there is no reason to believe in your God. Do you know how many Gods there are out there? By the logic you are using it seems that you should believe in every God.

And no, you have faith. We do not. Your first key to losing faith and learning is understanding the concept of evidence. I keep harping on this because it is so important. Creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. They cannot afford to.

I believe in God and I have faith that the God of the Bible is the right God.
Maybe Christians and exchristians can or have taken what you say about evidence seriously and so do not see the value and importance of their faith. You go on about evidence and forget that you have no evidence for your lack of belief and you deny that the evidence all around us and in the Bible is evidence because it does not match your strict rules about evidence.
But who cares for those rules and critical thinking which you see as superior to your God given faith. Well I suppose you care about those rules.

 

[Brian2]

Believers / makers of claims always have a burden of proof concerning the claims being believed / made.

What you are actually trying to say is that believers (in your view) simply don't care to meet that burden.
Not quite the same thing.

You want believers to prove scientifically, the existence of spirit and God. That goes outside the bounds of what science can do. You need to not reject God's faith when He calls you.

Who says any of these things?

Skeptics and atheists say prove it or I won't believe it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or even, prove it or it is not true. You just about said that above. No proof, no believe.
It isn't that believers don't care to meet that burden, it is that the burden is impossible to bear because what you want proven are unprovable. You believe them through faith with the evidence available or you do not.
But you have even been brain washed into believing what is acceptable evidence and what is not for a God and so even reject the evidence that has been given for the Bible and the Bible God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want believers to prove scientifically, the existence of spirit and God.

No.

I want (or rather: would prefer) anyone who believes / claims anything to do so rationally. Which means they should have rational justification for their beliefs. And one obtains rational justification through reasonable evidence.

Someone who doesn't care to do that, is someone that doesn't care the he/she is potentially holding false beliefs or claiming false things.

If rational justification for your beliefs are not important, then obviously you won't care about the burden of proof.

To such people, the actual truth is not important.
They just want to hold their beliefs because they "like" them or whatever.
Not because they are actually true.

See, I care about what is actually true. This is why I have reasonable standards for believing stuff. And that standard, is evidence.

Whenever I realize, or whenever it is pointed out to me, that I believe X on insufficient evidence... guess what I'll do? I'll instantly stop believing X.

That goes outside the bounds of what science can do. You need to not reject God's faith when He calls you.

How do I tell the difference between a god "calling me" and me just being confused, delusional, ... etc?

Skeptics and atheists say prove it or I won't believe it ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or even, prove it or it is not true.

Really?
Can you quote a "skeptic or atheist" on this forum who said such?

You just about said that above. No proof, no believe.

I did not.
You are welcome to quote me where you believe I said that.
If you can't manage to find a quote where I said that, then apologize for putting words in my mouth.

It isn't that believers don't care to meet that burden, it is that the burden is impossible to bear because what you want proven are unprovable.

It is not my fault that you decided to believe an unfalsifiable claim.
Yes, unfalsifiable claims can't have evidence by definition.

It's also why unfalsifiable claims are completely useless and irrelevant.
The sheer fact of being "unfalsifiable", is a good reason not to commit to it by believing it.

Or do you always believe unfalsifiable claims? They are infinite in number, you know, only really limited by human imagination.

Here is one example: an undetectable dragon is going to eat you unless you wrap yourself in tin foil.
So... will you be wrapping yourself in tin foil?

No??? So... what is it about unfalsifiable god claims that make them more believable then another random unfalsifiable claim?

It can't be evidence, since we already established neither can have any evidence, since they are unfalsifiable.

So on what grounds do you decide that one is believable while the other isn't?

Yes, this is a serious question.

What is more believable about an undetectable god as opposed to an undetectable dragon?

You believe them through faith with the evidence available or you do not.

There is no evidence available. You already acknowledged this. You necessarily can only resort to "faith" to believe it. And on "faith", you can literally believe anything.

Tell me, is there anything that one can't believe "on faith"?
Can't you believe in my undetectable dragon on "faith"?

But you have even been brain washed into believing what is acceptable evidence and what is not for a God and so even reject the evidence that has been given for the Bible and the Bible God.

The bible are the claims. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well yes I suppose there is some logic in there as well as the intuition and faith.
Verified evidence certainly can be a pathway to the truth but can also be a pathway to error, depending on the assumptions used in the interpretation of the evidence.
Faith and intuition can be reliable pathways to the truth.
The Amazing Secrets of Woodpecker Tongues.

The technical term that describes your design beliefs is "wishful thinking". Just like on the very rare occasions when I buy a lottery ticket.

I see it as the product of a design. I don't see that science knows for sure, any different.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

Because of that lack of belief in a God there is a willingness to leap to conclusions such as "abiogenesis has been shown to be true" or "creation of the universe did not need a God according to science" etc.
These leaps are leaps of faith and it is because of your lack of belief.
So then these leaps of faith tend to reinforce your lack of belief. So your faith reinforces your unwillingness to have faith.
I hope I keep learning from mistakes in logic and contradictions I make but really an error that many Christians make is to listen to atheists and skeptics and believe everything that they say.
You said "knowing is more important that believing". Maybe, sometimes. But you have not knowledge that there is no God or that abiogenesis is true or that God is not needed for the creation of the universe. You believe those things and science does not tell you.

Wow! Pure strawman arguments. Those are logical fallacies as well. No one said that here. I don't have those beliefs.

I believe in God and I have faith that the God of the Bible is the right God.
Maybe Christians and exchristians can or have taken what you say about evidence seriously and so do not see the value and importance of their faith. You go on about evidence and forget that you have no evidence for your lack of belief and you deny that the evidence all around us and in the Bible is evidence because it does not match your strict rules about evidence.
But who cares for those rules and critical thinking which you see as superior to your God given faith. Well I suppose you care about those rules.

LOL! You don't need to have evidence for a lack of belief. A lack of belief is the proper reaction when evidence is lacking.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To you it would be the fallacy of incredulity. For me it is not thinking, it is intuition, faith.

To everyone, it is a fallacious argument. That's just how reason and logic work. There isn't a special logic for you, and then another one for other people. To defy logic and reason, is to act or believe irrationally.

What you're saying here, in your appeal to faith, is that you are believing in something without evidence, logic or reason. That you're believing because you want to. Which is fine for you. Believe whatever you want, for whatever reason you want. But it's not good enough for rational thinkers who want to believe in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have good evidence. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence."
-Matt Dillahunty

This is what you've just done here. Do you see why faith seems useless to me? Anything can be believed on faith.

Who said I have a limitation in that way.

Your use of the fallacy from personal incredulity demonstrates that. As I just explained.

I could understand it fully and still believe God had to have created it all. Atheists/skeptics seem to think that once science has worked out some sort of mechanism for how things work, that that eliminates God or the need for God or faith and intuition that it had to have been a creator who did it.

Please stop making these claims that I've corrected you on endless times.

Someone needs to demonstrate that our scientific explanations of the world REQUIRE the inclusion of a god(s). I seriously need you to understand this.

I know that you say you have good evidence and critical thinking but it leads nowhere really except to a point where you say "the gap is not that big, a leap of faith to believe science has found what it has not really found is OK and nobody will notice"

I don't have any evidence indicating how the universe came into existence. So you know what the honest answer to that question is?
We. Don't. Know.

I strongly disagree with your statement that critical thinking leads no where. That is demonstrably false.
You know what kind of thinking leads no where? Faith.

So what you believe about nature and the universe is just like a religious faith and it is really an argument from incredulity. Science has nothing when it comes to creation, you believe it happened naturally, it must be a leap of faith from what is known to what you believe about nature. And this is based on your lack of belief in a God. I can't believe that a God exists who could do that.

I have made no argument from incredulity. You are just projecting your faults onto me at this point.
Lacking belief in god(s) is not a religion either. And absolutely zero faith is required. How much faith does it take you to not believe in fairies? Or Zeus? In fact, you disbelieve in all the same gods I do, except for one.

It is true that I cannot say that nobody has proven me wrong so therefore I am right. That is not what I am doing.

That is literally what you have done and said.

That however is the demand of atheists/sceptics. You say, "the burden of proof is on theists, theists have none so we must be right". It does not work like that, sorry. I have faith and you also have faith in what you believe about creation etc.
You just don't like admitting you have faith and no evidence that what you believe is true.

Atheists aren't demanding that somebody needs to prove you wrong. Rational thinkers are asking you to support your claims.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. No matter what we're talking about. Again, you seem to want a special pass for religious beliefs, but that's not how this works at all.

Nope. I have no use for faith. Unless you're accusing me of dishonesty. there's not much else to say about that. You have no idea what I believe in or not. This conversation is about YOUR claims. Why is it that people making god claims in this way always seem to want to shift the burden of proof onto someone else?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have missed the point. What I am pointing out is Talmudic evidence (not the same book) from the enemies of Jesus, the Jews, that Jesus was a miracle worker, sorcerer.

Still a claim. How and when did someone demonstrate that he was a miracle worker and a sorcerer?
The guy down the street from me thinks that people who perform magic tricks are actually doing magic. Does that make it so?

But there is no burden of proof for the believer anyway. Either you believe or you don't.

Of course there is.

Typical skeptic. Prove it or I won't believe it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or even, prove it or it is not true. (WT)
OK, don't believe it.

Nobody should be believing in anything without evidence. This isn't limited to religious beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How many times do I have to repeat that "earth" can be translated "land".

Any number of mental gymnastics can be used, apparently. And it still doesn't make sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

True there are parts that are hard to understand with a local flood, but what you quoted could be translated. "I am going to bring floodwaters on the land to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breathe of life in it."
This could be understood as being a local flood imo.
The flood could have been a very large local flood in that area covering thousands of squ miles. The local animals would need saving and putting back onto the land there.
Possibly Noah and family could have walked away but maybe God wanted to speak to the people there with the story of Noah building a boat because God was going to send a flood.

"All life under the heavens" is referring to a local flood???
Nah. Still doesn't make sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You want believers to prove scientifically, the existence of spirit and God. That goes outside the bounds of what science can do. You need to not reject God's faith when He calls you.

Skeptics and atheists say prove it or I won't believe it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or even, prove it or it is not true. You just about said that above. No proof, no believe.
It isn't that believers don't care to meet that burden, it is that the burden is impossible to bear because what you want proven are unprovable. You believe them through faith with the evidence available or you do not.

Okay then here's a question, why do you believe in things that you can't demonstrate to be true?
That's basically what you just said here. "It's impossible to show the things I believe in are true. I am making unprovable claims"
Why would anyone do that?

But you have even been brain washed into believing what is acceptable evidence and what is not for a God and so even reject the evidence that has been given for the Bible and the Bible God.

Understanding reason and logic and applying it accordingly isn't brainwashing.

 

[Jose Fly]

True there are parts that are hard to understand with a local flood, but what you quoted could be translated. "I am going to bring floodwaters on the land to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breathe of life in it."
This could be understood as being a local flood imo.

How? How does "all" translate into "some"?

The flood could have been a very large local flood in that area covering thousands of squ miles. The local animals would need saving and putting back onto the land there.

But again, the story doesn't say a thing about "only local animals", it specifically says "of every kind".

Possibly Noah and family could have walked away but maybe God wanted to speak to the people there with the story of Noah building a boat because God was going to send a flood.

Interestingly, when I was growing up the flood story was perhaps one of the first big issues I had with Christianity and the Bible. And when I would ask what I thought were obvious questions, answers like you just gave were a big part of my rejection of the faith. Even at a young age, I could tell when people were just making stuff up as they went along, and your reply very much reminds me of that.

 

[gnostic]

You want believers to prove scientifically, the existence of spirit and God. That goes outside the bounds of what science can do. You need to not reject God's faith when He calls you.

We are not asking science to demonstrate the existence of spirit or that of any god.

Science only deal with what can be tested - the physical or the natural, something that can be observed or detected - not the supernatural.

It is not the jobs of any scientists to deal with every unrealistic fantasies, or with every woo-woo pseudoscience.

No one has ever demonstrated that supernatural existing, so it is same to assume that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

But if you are going to challenge science with the supernatural, then it is up to those believers and claimants, to validate their own beliefs, as the burden of proof falls upon the claimants or the believers.

The main problems are not with skeptics of the supernatural, the problems are with the believers because they rely on faith, not evidence, not logic.

Faith-based beliefs are unjustified & beliefs, similar to unsubstantiated opinions. Faith have nothing to do with evidence, with facts, with reality or with logic, but it have everything to do with “superstitions”.

I have noticed that some believers would go out of their ways to use misinformation and evasive tactics. They are too egotistic to admit they were mistaken, refused to learn from it, only to repeat the same mistakes again some weeks or months later

 

[Astrophile]

I have beliefs based on rational justification and faith. and I don't see why I should believe that the universe came to be as it is all by itself when there is no verifiable evidence for that.

Even if the universe did not come to be as it is all by itself, what astronomers and cosmologists have found out about the origin and the history of the universe does not confirm any of the world's religions, and it certainly contradicts the creation stories in the book of Genesis.

 

[Brian2]

No.

I want (or rather: would prefer) anyone who believes / claims anything to do so rationally. Which means they should have rational justification for their beliefs. And one obtains rational justification through reasonable evidence.

Someone who doesn't care to do that, is someone that doesn't care the he/she is potentially holding false beliefs or claiming false things.

If rational justification for your beliefs are not important, then obviously you won't care about the burden of proof.

To such people, the actual truth is not important.
They just want to hold their beliefs because they "like" them or whatever.
Not because they are actually true.

See, I care about what is actually true. This is why I have reasonable standards for believing stuff. And that standard, is evidence.

Whenever I realize, or whenever it is pointed out to me, that I believe X on insufficient evidence... guess what I'll do? I'll instantly stop believing X.

OK.

Really?
Can you quote a "skeptic or atheist" on this forum who said such?

No, but many say or indicate that in what they say even if the wording is different.

I did not.
You are welcome to quote me where you believe I said that.
If you can't manage to find a quote where I said that, then apologize for putting words in my mouth.

Since where I wrote that (post 2308) the only thing you said that was above that is what is below, in blue. That was what I was referring to. Your type of evidence and proof is what you demand before you will believe. Then you deny that and want to accuse me of lying about it. You want an apology for saying what you tell me you want.

Believers / makers of claims always have a burden of proof concerning the claims being believed / made.
What you are actually trying to say is that believers (in your view) simply don't care to meet that burden.
Not quite the same thing.

It is not my fault that you decided to believe an unfalsifiable claim.
Yes, unfalsifiable claims can't have evidence by definition.

It's also why unfalsifiable claims are completely useless and irrelevant.
The sheer fact of being "unfalsifiable", is a good reason not to commit to it by believing it.

Or do you always believe unfalsifiable claims? They are infinite in number, you know, only really limited by human imagination.

Here is one example: an undetectable dragon is going to eat you unless you wrap yourself in tin foil.
So... will you be wrapping yourself in tin foil?

No??? So... what is it about unfalsifiable god claims that make them more believable then another random unfalsifiable claim?

It can't be evidence, since we already established neither can have any evidence, since they are unfalsifiable.

So on what grounds do you decide that one is believable while the other isn't?

Yes, this is a serious question.

What is more believable about an undetectable god as opposed to an undetectable dragon?

The undetectable God has left us with a history of interaction with people in the Bible and with prophecies that have been fulfilled. That is evidence of this God who is not detectable in the ways science use but is detectable in ways that humans use.

There is no evidence available. You already acknowledged this. You necessarily can only resort to "faith" to believe it. And on "faith", you can literally believe anything.

Tell me, is there anything that one can't believe "on faith"?
Can't you believe in my undetectable dragon on "faith"?



The bible are the claims. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

The Bible is evidence because of what it tells us. Fulfilled prophecies, witnessed death and so resurrection of Jesus and miracles and etc. That is evidence but you reject it.
I did not say there is no evidence, you are putting words in my mouth. You should show me where I said that or apologise for that lie about me.

 

[Brian2]

The technical term that describes your design beliefs is "wishful thinking". Just like on the very rare occasions when I buy a lottery ticket..

Argument from ignorance fallacy..

No I'm not saying that science does not know, therefore the argument from design must be true. I am saying that if you believe the woodpecker stuff was not designed then that is faith, anti faith, wishful thinking, glass half empty thinking, whatever you want to call it, but calling it science is mischaracterisation of what science can say it knows and what it cannot say it knows.

Wow! Pure strawman arguments. Those are logical fallacies as well. No one said that here. I don't have those beliefs..

It was a bit of a rant. LOL

LOL! You don't need to have evidence for a lack of belief. A lack of belief is the proper reaction when evidence is lacking.

LOL part of the same rant.