Keeping the same lane

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Keeping the same lane

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

To Seeker (Benjamin)
Re:

Switching gears (Seeker)
Date: 2001, May 17
From: Benjamin

Hi Seeker, Seeker: It's very difficult to respond without giving the impression that I'm a diehard evolutionist debating an equally hardened creationist. Definitely not my intention. Where to go from here? Hmmm..... Benjamin: I’ll have to admit that I’m one diehard creationist, and a six-day-young-earth one at that. Seeker: Lets' forget evolution. How about talking about creation and creation scientists? Benjamin: How about talking about creation, creation scientists AND evolution and evolution scientists at the same time? Honestly, I find it hard to talk about one camp without bringing in the other camp as well. Seeker: If the general scientific community is not interested in god, surely the creation scientists are. Has any of them attempted or is in the process of attempting to prove god scientifically? Benjamin: As rational people, creationists know full well what science is, what it can and cannot do. There is absolutely no way science can prove God so that is never the way creationists do their work. Creation scientists are not people obsessed with proving the existence of God. They believe wholeheartedly in the existence of God, their works testify to that belief, and they use their works to share to others the wonders of this God. The results of science can point to God but they do not prove God. And the evidence is heavily slanted to the conclusion that there is a Creator-God. Seeker: I'm not in favour of the "poke holes in evolution and that will prove creation" method. Have/Can they prove creation positively rather than negatively? Benjamin: If evolution is that formidable, then it won’t be that easy to poke holes into it, right? However, both Christian and non-Christian scientists have long been skeptical of evolution, and they are a growing minority. As creationists we offer both positive evidence for creation and negative evidence for evolution. I am sure a visit to AiG’s website will demonstrate that. Seeker: Also out is proving by incredulity, ie. "complex, ordered, unexplainable things proves god" category. Benjamin: I don’t agree with that conclusion. That’s not incredulity, that’s being reasonable. Being incredulous is to attribute complexity and order to random chance processes. Seeker: Philosophical arguments of the Aquinas 5 ways variety have also been refuted, if not soundly, at least enough to make them inconclusive. Benjamin: David Hume? He hasn’t really refuted anything. I don’t find his work any impressive. He assumed too much and borrowed too much from the Christian to make his point. Ultimately he puts himself as the final authority to determine whether there is a God. I think that is nothing short of arrogance. In my humble opinion, Aquinas’ arguments are still as formidable as ever. The most that critics did was to arrive at the conclusion that no one really knows anything for sure (how sure are they of this anyway?) to say that they can know that God exists. Such arguments which David Hume employed literally removed the carpet under his own feet. He didn’t have much to stand on and he don’t think the Christian has either. I won’t place my bet with Hume. Best Regards, Benjamin