Posted on 06/18/2008 1:51:50 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
As many readers know, I recently wrote a column titled “Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound,” which explored the logical and philosophical case for the Divine. As I painstakingly pointed out in the column, all of the arguments hold true whether one believes in evolution or not.
Nonetheless, many chose to attack the column from a scientific standpoint, not by bringing specific examples, but because of the lack thereof. While they entirely missed the meaning of the column, I would still like to address their issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Enjoy the latest column, I hope.
Thanks dear.
If God caused the Big Bang, and everything that happened after that is a result of it’s design then evolution and divine creation are not mutually exclusive.
That’s what I think, too. Who are we to dictate how God was to have created us, that he had to do it with a flash of light and a puff of smoke, or he doesn’t exist? Just let the evidence speak for itself without putting God on trial.
Who created the creator?
The creator is eternal. He did not need to be created. You are a finite being and have difficulty conceptualizing an infinite being. Your question is....irrelevant.
If man evolved and was not specially created in the image of God, then he is not differint in kind but only in degree from, say a gorilla.If so, then:
1)why did Jesus have to die?
2)Does man have reason and free will?
3)Does man have a conscience?
4)If he does not have the above things, then why respect natual rights?
The worldview, if it is logically consistent, of the secular humanist evolutionist is incompatible with the worldview of the skeptic of evolution.
Ditto!
Why did the creator not have to be created? You used the analogy that 10,000 skyscrapers couldn't have been created by themselves; they would obviously have been created by man, who himself was created by the creator. Why do the steps stop there? Many cultures had gods that were borne or created from other gods.
And what proof do you have that this creator, if he exists, is eternal?
Also, just about every culture in the history of world has an idea for a creator or creators. Which one is correct?
Think about that for a moment. At one point the universe didn't exist . . . then it did . . . it this happened because of the natural laws that didn't even exist until after the universe was there. Am I right?
Now we Monotheists of course say that G-d is the author of His own existence, but we don't claim He "created Himself." We say He is eternal. "Science" today has discarded the notion of an eternal universe, yet it still insists that the universe is the author of its own existence, ie, it created itself. This seems much more problematic than a mere claim of eternal existence.
Now it is possible that "science" postulates the existence of some sort of situation prior to the big bang that brought the universe into existence. The trouble there is that the existence of something before the big bang would mean that the universe wasn't created at that event, since this situation could be included within the definition of "the universe." Is "the universe" then eternal after all? Or maybe science posits that the "laws of physics" (which it insists are absolute and unalterable [otherwise you'd never know when your cat might breathe fire]) pre-existed, and caused the big bang. They might insist that these "laws of nature" or the situation that called forth the universe is not itself part of the (non-eternal) universe, but that would mean these "laws" or "conditions" are in effect an eternal "logos" that preceded the universe, called forth its existence, and (I assume) will continue to exist after this universe is long gone, perhaps creating other realities.
The trouble is, this only works if you want to arbitrarily declare the universe and the "natural conditions" that brought it about to be separate entities. One could just as easily declare these natural laws part of the universe as we know them, and therefore the universe is indeed eternal.
Of course science cannot study anything other than the natural conditions before it (and this includes retrojecting present physical natural laws into the distant past and distant future to come up with theories as to how the universe began and will end), which means that the origin of the universe (including the natural laws or the situation that brought it about) is outside the purview of science altogether.
INTREP
Does being "created in the image of God" mean God has to have two arms and legs, ten toes and fingers, hair, fingernails, fingerprints, etc...?
Theology is supposed to be about our spiritual relationship with God - our physical bodies are little more than shells for our souls to inhabit while on this Earth.
I believe evolution made us homo sapiens.
Our souls are what make us men, and that is what is in His image.
What you happen to believe is absurd isn't proof of anything.
All world views except for true biblical reformed Christianity end in arbitrariness or irrationality.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians would disagree with you.
Why should it matter? I could say, for instance, that I believe that our universe is a child's sandbox and all that we can see is his work during a pleasant afternoon of play with his toys. I could further assert that we haven't heard from him lately because his parents have called him in for supper before tucking him for the night. Will he come back tomorrow and begin again, wiping out his old design to try something different, or will he continue to observe and study his creation? It's not for us to know, so who can say?
Regards,
GtG
PS Regardless of our opinion in the matter, the creator exists just as he should and we can only surmise his nature.
There's no shortage of people here who it matters a great deal to and are ready to step up and tell you the exact nature of the creator. See #14.
Two quick points however, your examples (Catholics and E.O.C.) are ammunition for my world view, not pot shots to it. Secondly, what I believe isn't absurd, but rather follows the rules of logic. It's simple, God created the heavens and the earth. That's not an absurd or irrational statement. Rather, it is a claim.
If so, you failed to explain how, since you said that "all world views except for true biblical reformed Christianity end in arbitrariness or irrationality." I take it you don't consider those churches "reformed", therefore they are arbitrary and irrational.
Secondly, what I believe isn't absurd...
That's not what I said. I said that what you qualify as being absurd does not prove anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.