1,161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: +
Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists (view source)
Revision as of 17:17, June 17, 2008
, 17:17, June 17, 2008→Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism.
:::::Here's one criteria that I look at for thinking through the religions. Since it's not possible for the universe to be caused by a natural being, (1) If the religion has any hope, it must be a supernatural being. That right there gets rid of a ton of "religions" where God is just an exalted man (like mormonism), or animistic religions where God is an animal or a tree, or pantheistic religions where God is one with all material things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Here's one criteria that I look at for thinking through the religions. Since it's not possible for the universe to be caused by a natural being, (1) If the religion has any hope, it must be a supernatural being. That right there gets rid of a ton of "religions" where God is just an exalted man (like mormonism), or animistic religions where God is an animal or a tree, or pantheistic religions where God is one with all material things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Here's the practical thing to get out of this then. What I'm saying is that this criteria really lessens the amount of work you need to do. You now don't have to even investigate some religions imply on the basis that they don't have a supernatural deity. I realize I haven't made the case for Christianity, but I'm making the case for God. Don't worry, I'm tracking with you :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 13:17, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. And it's interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. And it's interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::If there is a God who is by definition perfect, he is then perfectly beautiful. Taking that he is perfectly beautiful, and being the first cause, he is then the standard for what beauty should be. Anything that is not beautiful in his eyes does not have true beauty. So yes, there is a true and a false kind of beauty. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::If there is a God who is by definition perfect, he is then perfectly beautiful. Taking that he is perfectly beautiful, and being the first cause, he is then the standard for what beauty should be. Anything that is not beautiful in his eyes does not have true beauty. So yes, there is a true and a false kind of beauty. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)