[general_re]

Notice, first of all, that you used the word see in two different ways. You said "Others see what exists." Next, you put the word see in quotation marks, saying "You 'see' whatever you want to see."

But now, notice that you have implied in your first statement that a Creator does not exist.

The conclusion that "a Creator does not exist" logically follows from the statement that "others see what exists"?

I think not.

[the_doc]

I said that FReeper Patrick Henry IMPLIED that no Creator exists. I stand by that.

***

Look again at PH's remark, in context. His reference to "others" was a reference to non-creationists (i.e., to people unlike me). So, he was saying that non-creationists see what exists.

Please hold that thought for a minute--and notice that PH turned around immediately and maintained that creationists "see" what they want to see. (This is an idea of believing, but he called it a seeing.)

I submit that PH intended to use that very statement (about creationists seeing what they want to see) to disparage creationists as less than fully rational. PH's previous remark was a set-up for this disparagement. He was faintly but definitely bragging about the "objectivity," about the perspicacity (?), of the non-creationists so that he could insinuate that we creationists are somehow less noble than "real scientists" (and perhaps even somehow feeble-minded).

Why am I alert for this disparagement? It's because it is the standard stupid "argument" which non-creationists (like Asimov, the poor fool!) have always offered. It's not a valid argument, of course; it is merely snotty junk from people who trust their intellect when they shouldn't.

A lot of "real scientists" are not as good at their discipline of science as they think they are. They need to be more concerned about being correct.

***

In short, PH's remark that non-creationists see what is was intended to insinuate that creationists see what isn't. But this insinuation is actually dishonest. The non-creationists indulge in this sort of dishonesty only because the non-creationists are foolish enough to assume that they are correct in their apprehension of reality. (And they aren't!)

Well, I am turning the tables. I submit that we creationists are more intellectually honest than the non-creationists. We are more rational than the non-creationists. We recognize that reasonableness sometimes demands a faculty for seeing things which are, for various wonderful reasons, invisible.

My bottom-line point is that antichristian scientists are not at all reasonable. (This is why I specifically dared to point out that avowed atheists are complete fools. They don't have an intellectual leg to stand on--but the poor fools manifestly don't care about that.)

Anyway, the God Whom I know, the God of the Bible, flatly declares that He is NOT interested in having everyone in His creation come to know Him. Romans 1:16-23 is crystal clear in this regard.

Think about that. You will see what I mean one of these Days.