Mark Bloss on "Creationism [1/2]"
with me...
 RT>>> On what do you base this belief?
 MB>>  Faith.
 RT>> On what do you base your faith?
 MB>  I cannot accept a universe without a God.  That is what my faith is
 MB>  about.  
Why can't you accept it?
 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 this
 RT>> belief is. 
 MB>  I hold this belief because the absence of a creator in a universe as
 MB>  well put together as this one, is unacceptable to me.  
Why is it unacceptable to you?
 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.
 MB>  
 RT>>> Indeed. If as you say your god is so honest then why is it so elusive
 RT>>> and totally unevidenced? 
 MB>  Because it takes faith to believe in Him, and to evidence Himself
 MB> would
 MB>  mean that God somehow must prove Himself, so that I would then not
 MB> need
 MB>  faith to believe in Him.  If He proved Himself so that faith is not 
 MB>  required to believe in Him, then His purpose for me is diminished, ie,
 MB>  I do not develop faith, which is an attribute _of_ God.  I think I
 MB>  answered this question in a manner in the previous response.
You did indeed, and you have clarified precisely what I have stated below, 
namely, that god demands there be no evidence of his existence. And there 
isn't.
 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
 MB>  Not at all.  One can believe something that does have evidence, rather
 MB>  no concrete evidence.  There are two kinds of evidence.  For example -
 MB>  Paul wrote in his famous definition of faith:  'faith is the evidence
 MB>  of things unseen [ie: unevidenced].'
Paul, quite frankly, hasn't a clue what evidence is.
If I have faith that there are invisible pink elephants living on the dark 
side of the moon then that is evidence of their existence.
Many children all over the western world believe in Santa Claus. Is that 
evidence of his existence?
 MB>  A more pointed way of saying
 MB>  this is - faith is seeing the invisible, believing without seeing;
Believing without seeing is called faith. Not evidence.
 MB>  Paul was talking about a nuomenal evidence being the "evidence" for
There is no evidence for spirit either Mark.
 MB>  faith - and that is enough  - that phenomenal evidence is secondary
 MB>  to it.
ie. faith has no physical basis. No evidence.
 MB>  In the context of what Paul wrote - he might have written
 MB>  'faith is the nuomenal evidence of that which is phenomenally 
 MB>  unevidenced.'
And he, frankly, is talking utter rubbish. This is based on the belief that 
the numenal evidence (literally the spirit world) is evidence for the 
unevidenced. There is no evidence for the spirit world either.
 MB>  In fact, at first glance at the Greek, it would seem
 MB>  Paul was contradicting himself: 'faith is seeing the unseeable'.
 MB>  But it is still "seeing" - whether or not it is a seeing that will
 MB>  pass peer review or not - and this is the crucial point about what
 MB>  faith means.
That it is entirely subjective.
 MB>  It is not to be understood in the contextual processess
 MB>  of a scientific approach - it loses its purpose in such a restriction.
You mean, there is no basis for it in the cold light of day.
 MB>  It comes from the breath of man, so to speak - and it cannot be
 MB>  _disavowed_ because of its compelling nuomenal evidence.  
There is no numenal 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. 
 MB>  A very unfortunate state.  But that is our nature - because of each
 MB>  person's perspective.  I do not say it is "right" to believe something
 MB>  without physical evidence - I only say that everyone _does_ believe
 MB>  _something_ without physical evidence - because of personal _and_
 MB>  subjective experience.  This is not only philosophical - it is a fact
 MB>  of life.
So it is a bit pointless you asserting that god exists then.
 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? 
 MB>  That they are what Paul described as those whose "imaginations have
 MB>  been puffed-up by their flesh".
Liars IOWs.
 MB> You see, even Paul knew about those
 MB>  kinds of people, and what really motivated them.  Now - certain
 MB> personal
 MB>  confirmations by God may indeed have occured - don't misunderstand me
 MB> -  but they certainly are unable to "prove" it.
Mark. God demands that he be unevidenced. You are clearly stating here that 
personal confirmations are available. This contradicts gods own demands. 
Either you are lying or your god is. Which?
 MB> And this is entirely the
 MB>  point - even _with_ their personal experience - their subjective proof
 MB> - God has not evidenced Himself to anyone, except purportedly to them,
 MB> in their own personal experiences.
This is a feeble attempt to pretend that god can give evidence without giving 
evidence. He either does or doesn't give evidence of his existence 
_regardless_ of whether we believe it or not. Either you are lying or god is. 
Which?
 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.
 MB>  I just did.
Liar. You CANNOT provide evidence of your god because he demands that he be 
unevidenced.
 MB> He exists because it would be impossible for my limited
 MB>  imagination to understand a universe _without_ God.
No. You think he exists because of your limited imagination.
 MB>  A universe like
 MB>  this simply would not exist without some Thing from which it had
 MB>  emanated.
Plainly.
 MB>  Since the universe has certain attributes, such as
 MB>  consistent laws governing its behavior - then likewise that from which
 MB>  it emanated must of a kind have consistent laws governing Its 
 MB>  behavior.  One can't have an infinite regression - so whatever Force
 MB>  drives the existence of... existence itself - is God. 
Where did god come from?
 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 saying
 RT>> that there are somehow people around who are able to listen to god. How
 RT>> is this possible if god, by his own demands, will never show any sign
 RT>> 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? 
 MB>  Oh - that one is easy.  Whatever nature nature has - is the nature of
 MB>  God.  Else we aren't talking about God - but a fabrication of
 MB> someone's imagination.
No, you have to provide evidence of god _first_ *before* you can claim that 
nature is created by god.
 MB> Therefore, since it is impossible for me to concieve of
 MB>  Existence without God, then whatever reality is, is _of_ God and _by_
 MB>  God.
I CAN conceive of an existence without god. By your logic, god does not 
exist. 
 MB>  How can I provide evidence that "my" God created nature?
You can't. God demands he remain unevidenced. Any claim to evidence of god is 
therefore a lie. If it is not a lie then god is a liar.
 MB>  Because that is His definition.  If God did not create nature - then
 MB>  I don't exist and nothing else exists either, and then there would be 
 MB>  no need for evidence anyway.
You don't exist then Mark.
    Relatif Tuinn
... 186,000 mps: It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW.
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------