The Case For A Creator

Here at EvC, we tend to be skeptical of the integrity of Christian Apologists. While my critics say that I need to look at the evidence and quit accepting emotions and internal impressions as my evidence of God, they counter by saying that there essentially is no evidence for God...(at least the Christian Trinitarian One)I bought Lee Strobel's book in order to see how the apologist defends the premise.

quote:

---

During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant”or so Strobel thought. But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason. Has science discovered God? At the very least, it’s giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe. Join Strobel as he reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. Through his compelling account, you’ll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in The Case for a Creator.

---

The case For A CreatorI bought the book and have been reading it. One telling trait that we all have in these types of debates is our own personal bias one way or the other. Indeed, one of the reviews of the book said this much:

quote:

---

This is the third Strobel "Case" book I've read, and I was definitely less impressed with this one than his previous two books.
More so than in his other books, in this one I was particularly troubled with the fact that he only interviews people who are going to give him the answers he wants. He needs to interview atheists!

---

The book is a good read so far. In
CHAPTER 4: Where Science Meets Faith a fellow by the name of Dr.Alan Rex Sandage is interviewed. I did a bit of fact checking on the internet and found further information on Dr.Sandage from this webpageThey asked him some questions. His answer here is noteworthy.(he has valid credentials to back up his assertions) Q. Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion?
I've not yet perused internet infidels to see what your heroes retort in this book, but shall do so...if only in the name of fair and balanced...

Isn’t that the one where Strobel goes to Intelligent Design people instead of actual experts? That was obvious even for Strobel.Sandage seems more reasonable.But there is something missing in the quote you give. There is no reason why the “church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level” should be accepted.My other objection would be that “why” is ambiguous - there are senses of it that science can answer. And it is far from clear that the “why” questions he raises do have answers in a sense that science cannot address (or have much of an answer at all - I have addressed ”why is there something instead of nothing before” and come to the conclusion that it isn’t likely to have a satisfying answer)

These apologists seem to be painting themselves into a corner. They are actually agreeing with the argument that if something can be explained through natural causes then God does not exist. They require God to act in contradiction to nature in order for God to create.If I were you, I would take a look at theistic evolution or go to BioLogos to learn about evolutionary creationism.

Science is based on objective verifiable evidence. If religion is based on objective verifiable evidence there will be no conflict. As far as I am aware, no religion is based on objective verifiable evidence, so...

For decades I have been seeing the exact same thing. With YECs it seems to be inherited from fundamentalists treating science as an enemy attacking their faith by coming up with naturalistic explanations for everything, such that an implicit consequence is to adopt a perversion of the "God of the Gaps" (which is a perversion entirely on its own). A standard simple example would be lightning. Before a scientific understanding, it was only explainable by attributing it to a god (eg, Zeus, Thor, YHWH), but once we understood the phenomenon scientifically, then that god was no longer necessary to explain it. It is that kind of logical reasoning that fundamentalists fear and characterize as science waging war on religion.BTW, the story I read about Benjamin Franklin's invention of the lightning rod is that lightning was believed to be the "Finger of God" meting out his Justice and Wrath. So at first the preachers vilified Franklin viciously for thwarting the Will of God (strange that God the Omnipotent could be so easily thwarted). But then they finally began to realize that the most frequent target of lightning was the churches with their bell towers -- I seem to recall that one particularly disastrous lightning strike ignited the gunpowder that was hidden in the church's basement. Finally, the churches started installing lightning rods and no longer suffered lightning strikes, but they didn't want to talk about it.ID is more explicit about their reliance on "God of the Gaps". First, their primary bugaboo is naturalism, which they characterize as "philosophical naturalism" (ie, the idea that the natural universe is all that exists; there is no supernatural) while they primarily attack science's "methodological naturalism" (ie, the reality that science can only deal with and use naturalistic processes and explanations; there is no position on the supernatural except that science cannot work with it). Second, most of their arguments are of the type of showing something to be highly complex (eg, their "irreducible complexity" arguments) and concluding that since we cannot explain it therefore their "Intelligent Designer" (for Whom they play the same "it's unnamed" game as "creation science" did with their "some unnamed Creator" smokescreen) -- AKA "goddidit".In addition, we have some interesting affirmations of "God of the Gaps" by ID leaders. In particular, I once read an essay by Phillip E. Johnson where towards the end he states that his main reason for opposing evolution is that "it leaves God with nothing to do" (quoted from memory; I have not been able to find that essay again). To my mind, that was an explicit statement of belief in the "God of the Gaps" and in the attitude that you describe.My thoughts on the matter, which I have offered a few times on this forum with no responses, is that creationists' false dichotomy of natural processes versus What God Does is extremely wrong and leads to "faux creationism", a false form of creationism. The way I see it, an Actual Creationist would believe in a Creator who did actually create the entire Universe including all the natural forces and processes that operate within that created universe. Therefore, an Actual Creationist would realize that there cannot possibly be a situation of Nature vs God, since God had created Nature. Even though lightning forms entirely through naturalistic processes, that does not in any manner deny God who had created those naturalistic processes. Evolution does not conflict with God, because it is the cumulative results of life (which an Actual Creationist believes was created by God) doing what life does. Even abiogenesis, the origin of life through natural processes, does not conflict with God since, yet again, God had created those natural processes.Fake creationism (eg, YEC, ID) can only function by creating false conflicts where none exist. To an Actual Creationist, they would be an abomination.Edited by dwise1, : Corrected number on a verb conjugationEdited by dwise1, : Corrected "lightening" to "lightning" as per Pollux

Hi Dwise1,Your discussion of "lightening" sounds so much like "lightning" that I doubt its existence as a separate phenomenon!

Im glad that you can make that argument, though I wonder if you argue academically without understanding belief in general.If you put me on the spot, I doubt whether I could defend why I supposedly understand it. Its just one of those things that you know it when you see it.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

I would argue that the "religion" of Christianity was never meant to be discerned and accepted based on objective verifiable evidence. Of course there were allegedly a few eyewitnesses to some of the major stories within the NT, but the belief seemingly spread like a wildfire through the people afterwards. One could argue that the spread itself was cause for claiming validity...but arguably Islam spread even faster, so truth cannot be used as the reason.

In paying true homage to cafeteria Christianity I have never cared much whether Genesis was literally true or not. I saw it all as an allegory or parable. In contrast, I have and do believe that the Resurrection is in fact a literal event and that Jesus Christ was more than a mere man, prophet, or ordinary guy. I doubt whether anyone will be able to prove that either way---I certainly am unimpressed with Richard carrier and the modern mythicists. They seem to have an axe to grind despite their distractive charm and innocence regarding the search for truth. In addition, I believe that we are in a spiritual war and that there are literally principalities, powers, and assignments against the Christian message. Dont ask me why---just call me crazy. My only defense would be to say that if you had walked a mile in my shoes...

There is no evidence of this. There is actually evidence that it spread very slowly for a few hundred years.
It did not become the major belief until it was co-opted by imperial powers.

What the fork are you talking about? I never wrote that! That isn't even in this topic, but rather in an entirely different topic, I Know That God Does Not Exist, where PaulK in Message 856 replied to GDR's Message 855:

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

GDR writes:

​

It is only partly about arguing for an intelligent root cause but I accept that the answer is subjective. However, the view that we are the result of mindless chemical processes that started from lifelessness is every bit as subjective.

I don’t think that preferring rationality to fantasy is subjective. But if that is the way you want to go, I guess you had better stop trying to pretend to be rational.

---

Furthermore, you replied to that very same part of PaulK's message and you agreed with him! So, what the fork?Why are you falsely attributing that quote to me? I'm sorry, but that reeks of the stench of all-too-typical "true Christian" dishonesty! What kind of forking bullshirt are you trying to pull here?

My apology. I was thinking that I was replying to PaulK in the other topic but somehow pasted in the wrong window, reread the quotes and found they did not make sense and then tried to fix it...in the wrong thread! That was totally my error! Dont stereotype me just yet. I will edit the post.Better yet i will repost it with my corrected reply below:
*************************************************************** At which point I thought about my assertion of understanding belief in general. I then meant to say:If you put me on the spot, I doubt whether I could defend why I supposedly DO understand belief.. Its just one of those things that you know it when you see it.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Of course not. What religion is?

Are you trying to argue that "belief in general" requires one to embrace ideas that are clearly and blatantly contrary to fact?That is what "creation science" requires. It's even official doctrine as presented by ICR's John Morris at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism:

quote:

---

If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.

---

That's the same as saying that if the sea is the wrong shade of pink then God does not exist. "Creation science's" contrary-to-fact claims are complete and utter nonsense and creationists base their faith on such nonsense!Among the critics of "creation science" are actual creationists, actual believers in Creation and the Creator who object to "creation science's" faux creationists who have usurped the title of "Creationist" from the actual creationists. We already know of Dr. Kenneth Miller, a Catholic and staunch and highly effective opponent of "creation science", declaring himself a creationist because he does believe in God the Creator. Here are some excerpts from an evangelical creationist with the same complaint:

quote:

---

I am an evangelical Christian and a creationist. I am also a Ph.D. candidate in geology, believe that the earth is approximately 4,600,000,000 years old, and have taught evolution in historical geology courses. Does this sound contradictory to you? Well, read on...

​

. . .

​

Creationism, despite what some people think, is not a belief held exclusively by uneducated Protestant fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally.

​

. . .

​

I've read many of the materials written by young-earth creationists such as Steve Austin, Thomas Barnes, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John Morris, Gary Parker, and Harold Slusher among others. I'm also very familiar with the material put out by Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. In addition, I've even attended lectures and seminars by several well-known young-earth creationists.
In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?

​

. . .

​

My criticisms of creationism are not incompatible with my being an evangelical Christian. Donald Bloesch, in his comprehensive two volume Essentials of Evangelical Theology (1978), states that:

quote:

---

If we take the genealogies in the Old Testament as literal chronologies, we will have to opt for a recent date for the creation of the world and man (5000-4000 B.C.?), and we will then have to resort to spurious science to support our allegations. This is not to say that current science supplies the norm for settling these issues, for this would make scientific rationality the criterion for truth. It does mean that if we use science, we must do so honestly, and much of contemporary evangelical apologetics in this area is dishonest.

---

​

. . .

​

Keeping all of the above in mind, I think it's time for Christians to reclaim the word creationists from the Biblical literalists. To be a creationist means to believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life therein. This is the historic, orthodox Christian position and implies nothing about the age of the earth or the mechanisms (or lack thereof) of biological evolution. Let's speak of Biblical creation or young-earth creation when distinguishing the beliefs of those who accept a literal reading of Genesis.

​

In regard to the Biblical-creation/evolution controversy, I think it's probably best for Christians not to become dogmatic one way or another, to accept that devout Christians can hold differing viewpoints on the issue, to be willing to examine the evidence with an open mind, and to remain humble in the knowledge that only God knows the whole Truth. I think we'll all be surprised when we one day stand face-to-face with our Creator!

---

An actual creationist would believe that God actually created the universe and that the universe is a reflection of its Creator. Faux creationists (eg, YECs) give lip service to the Creation while at the same time believing emphatically that the universe disproves the existence of God. Actual creationists believe that the world is the way it is because that's how God created it; faux creationists believe that if the world is the way it is then God does not exist. Actual creationists want to learn about the Creation, including how it came about; faux creationists don't want to learn and want to dictate to God what He could and could not do.Which makes more sense?

You're crazy. It's a paranoid delusion, like Faith seeing leftists behind every tree.