>>> Part 1 of 2...
>
>Relatif Tuinn wrote to Mark Bloss about Creationism
 MB>>  But I do believe this whole universe was created by the one God - only
 RT>> On what do you base this belief?
 MB>  Faith.
 RT> On what do you base your faith?
 
 I cannot accept a universe without a God.  That is what my faith is
 about.  
 
 MB> And why do you ask?  And why is that important?  And what's
 MB> your point?
 RT> The reason I ask is because I don't believe that this Universe was
 RT> created by god, or that a god of any shape or form exists. So, I'm
 RT> interested to hear why you hold this belief and what the basis for
 RT> this belief is. 
 
 I hold this belief because the absence of a creator in a universe as
 well put together as this one, is unacceptable to me.  
 MB>>  I don't believe he _lies_ about the age of the earth, anymore than He
 MB>>  would lie about whether or not it's raining outside.  If you see it 
 MB>>  raining, then it is raining - and if you see fossilized dinosaur
 MB>> bones, then the earth is several billion years old.
 
 RT>> Indeed. If as you say your god is so honest then why is it so elusive
 RT>> and totally unevidenced? 
 
 Because it takes faith to believe in Him, and to evidence Himself would
 mean that God somehow must prove Himself, so that I would then not need
 faith to believe in Him.  If He proved Himself so that faith is not 
 required to believe in Him, then His purpose for me is diminished, ie,
 I do not develop faith, which is an attribute _of_ God.  I think I
 answered this question in a manner in the previous response.
 
 MB> who
 MB>  says he isn't a believer, believes he isn't a believer, and therefore
 MB>  is a believer.
 RT> This is what someone else said. I didn't agree with him either. The
 RT> reason I don't agree is because, as you state, one can only have a
 RT> belief in something that does not have evidence to support it. If one
 Not at all.  One can believe something that does have evidence, rather 
 no concrete evidence.  There are two kinds of evidence.  For example -
 Paul wrote in his famous definition of faith:  'faith is the evidence
 of things unseen [ie: unevidenced].'   A more pointed way of saying 
 this is - faith is seeing the invisible, believing without seeing;
 Paul was talking about a nuomenal evidence being the "evidence" for 
 faith - and that is enough  - that phenomenal evidence is secondary 
 to it.  In the context of what Paul wrote - he might have written
 'faith is the nuomenal evidence of that which is phenomenally 
 unevidenced.'  In fact, at first glance at the Greek, it would seem
 Paul was contradicting himself: 'faith is seeing the unseeable'.
 But it is still "seeing" - whether or not it is a seeing that will
 pass peer review or not - and this is the crucial point about what
 faith means.  It is not to be understood in the contextual processess
 of a scientific approach - it loses its purpose in such a restriction.
 It comes from the breath of man, so to speak - and it cannot be
 _disavowed_ because of its compelling nuomenal evidence.  
 RT> disagree's with that belief then one is a non-believer and does not
 RT> have to offer any evidence to support his position whilst the opposing
 RT> stance has never produced any evidence of any form to support their
 RT> position. 
 
 A very unfortunate state.  But that is our nature - because of each
 person's perspective.  I do not say it is "right" to believe something
 without physical evidence - I only say that everyone _does_ believe
 _something_ without physical evidence - because of personal _and_
 subjective experience.  This is not only philosophical - it is a fact
 of life.
 MB>  we believe because of our faith in something we can't see.
 RT> This tells me that you can never have evidence of god because he will
 RT> not allow it. If that is correct then what am I to conclude about all
 RT> the people who have claimed to have confirmation from god of his
 RT> existence? 
 
 That they are what Paul described as those whose "imaginations have 
 been puffed-up by their flesh".  You see, even Paul knew about those
 kinds of people, and what really motivated them.  Now - certain personal
 confirmations by God may indeed have occured - don't misunderstand me -
 but they certainly are unable to "prove" it.  And this is entirely the
 point - even _with_ their personal experience - their subjective proof -
 God has not evidenced Himself to anyone, except purportedly to them, in
 their own personal experiences.
 MB> If you do
 MB>  not believe there is a God, then you have faith in something you can't
 MB>  see: the proof of his non-existence.
 RT> Likewise, if you DO believe there is a god, then you have faith in
 RT> something that you can never see, or have confirmation from, by
 RT> definition. You have no proof of his existence and by your statements
 RT> above you never can. 
 RT> Please provide evidence of your god.
 
 I just did.  He exists because it would be impossible for my limited
 imagination to understand a universe _without_ God.  A universe like
 this simply would not exist without some Thing from which it had
 emanated.  Since the universe has certain attributes, such as 
 consistent laws governing its behavior - then likewise that from which
 it emanated must of a kind have consistent laws governing Its 
 behavior.  One can't have an infinite regression - so whatever Force
 drives the existence of... existence itself - is God. 
 
 RT>> What is its purpose for us if it has one, and why has it not made this
 RT>> purpose known to us so that we can give it our full attention?  I don't
 RT>> see much honesty in your god either.
 
 MB>  His purpose is self-evident to those who believe.
 MB>  And He has made His
 MB>  purpose known to us so that we can give it our full attention.
 RT> I assume, that because you are a believer, it is self-evident to you
 RT> what gods purpose is? Maybe you'd like to explain what his purpose is
 RT> so that we can judge for ourselves. 
 MB>  But -
 MB>  unless you are listening to Him, how can you say He is a liar?
 RT> Up above you state that belief in god must be unevidenced for it to be
 RT> belief. This, as you state above, is how god made it. Now you're
 RT> saying that there are somehow people around who are able to listen to
 RT> god. How is this possible if god, by his own demands, will never show
 RT> any sign of himself? 
 MB>  His purpose is known to us in the fossils and in the nucleus of the
 MB>  atom, it is known to us in our DNA, and in our water, and in the
 MB>  velocity of light.  How can you say nature itself lies?
 RT> First of all you must provide evidence that your god created nature
 RT> before you can argue that the existence of nature is proof of gods
 RT> existence. Can you? 
 
 Oh - that one is easy.  Whatever nature nature has - is the nature of
 God.  Else we aren't talking about God - but a fabrication of someone's
 imagination.  Therefore, since it is impossible for me to concieve of
 Existence without God, then whatever reality is, is _of_ God and _by_
 God.  How can I provide evidence that "my" God created nature?   
 Because that is His definition.  If God did not create nature - then
 I don't exist and nothing else exists either, and then there would be 
 no need for evidence anyway.
 >>> Continued to next message...
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------