Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists"
(Not much of a challenge) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it. | In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it. | ||
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT) | --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Not much of a challenge == | ||
| + | |||
| + | What kind of challenge is that? The challenger doesn't even understand the nature of [[God]].{{Bible quote|Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."|book=Mark|chap=10|verses=27}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | Now [[Jesus]] was talking about salvation, especially in the context of one who clings to "the good life" here on [[Earth]]. But it goes double and triple and tenfold and a thousandfold for an event as all-encompassing as [[creation]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Here's the real challenge: if [[God]] ''did not'' create everything, then explain to me how it was physically possible for things to "just happen," and in a way that does not multiply guesses. It doesn't even have to be an odds-on favorite; odds less than nineteen to one against would be fine. The trouble is that the odds against things "just happening" are nothing short of [[astronomy|astronomical]], and somethings simply ''could not'' have "just happened" in any amount of time, and other things couldn't have happened because they ''did not have that much time''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:47, June 16, 2008
Re: If god did create the universe, then it would have to be physically possible for a sentient being to create universes, planets, living creatures, basically anything.
Physically possible? I think a far better explanation is that it was a supernatural event. Please go HERE. Conservative 17:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Jack,
Your challenge echoes that of Kent Hovind, and is flawed for the same reasons. By the same logic, I could challenge you to prove that you're not a clever construct being controlled by hyper-intelligent slug aliens from a distant galaxy, and claim that if you can't prove it, the notion that you're a sentient being has no merit.
You're asking finite beings to explain the infinite. By definition, we cannot. If God exists, then we cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders. If God does not exist, then we obviously cannot explain Him or the mechanisms by which He works His wonders.
Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --Benp 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually...
My challenge is nothing like Hovind's.
Hovind's was invalid because it required one to prove things outside the scope of evolution, not just evolution. Hovind's challenge therefore wasn't to prove evolution, it was to disprove creationism, which is by nature unfalsifiable.
physical or supernatural, creationism requires the actions of god to be POSSIBLE in some way. Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence, as they say. I could claim that there exists a being that defies all laws known to man, but it would be just that: a claim. Until I proved it could be done.
In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it. --JackSmith 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
Not much of a challenge
What kind of challenge is that? The challenger doesn't even understand the nature of God.
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." Mark 10:27
Now Jesus was talking about salvation, especially in the context of one who clings to "the good life" here on Earth. But it goes double and triple and tenfold and a thousandfold for an event as all-encompassing as creation.
Here's the real challenge: if God did not create everything, then explain to me how it was physically possible for things to "just happen," and in a way that does not multiply guesses. It doesn't even have to be an odds-on favorite; odds less than nineteen to one against would be fine. The trouble is that the odds against things "just happening" are nothing short of astronomical, and somethings simply could not have "just happened" in any amount of time, and other things couldn't have happened because they did not have that much time.--TerryHTalk 09:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)