The Case For A Creator

Dr.Sandrage writes:In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality. The Bible is certainly not a book of science. One does not study it to find the intensities and the wavelengths of the Balmer spectral lines of hydrogen. But neither is science concerned with the ultimate spiritual properties of the world, which are also real.
Science makes explicit the quite incredible natural order, the interconnections at many levels between the laws of physics, the chemical reactions in the biological processes of life, etc. But science can answer only a fixed type of question. It is concerned with the what, when, and how. It does not, and indeed cannot, answer within its method (powerful as that method is), why.Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do all electrons have the same charge and mass? Why is the design that we see everywhere so truly miraculous? Why are so many processes so deeply interconnected?But we must admit that those scientists that want to see design will see design. Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science.There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard's 12th century dictum "Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other" still rings true.If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong.I believe there is a clear, heavy, and immediate responsibility for the church to understand and to believe in the extraordinary results and claims of science. Its success is simply too evident and visible to ignore. It is likewise incumbent upon scientists to understand that science is incapable, because of the limitations of its method by reason alone, to explain and to understand everything about reality. If the world must simply be understood by a materialistic reductionist nihilism, it would make no sense at all. For this, Romans 1:19-21 seems profound. And the deeper any scientist pushes his work, the more profound it does indeed become.

dwise1 writes:...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.

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.

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..

Taq writes: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.

dwise1 writes:...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.

phats original comment writes:Im glad that you can make that argument, though I wonder if you argue academically without understanding belief in general.

Theodoric,refuting my claim of rapidly spreading Christianity writes: 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.

ringo writes:You can't include all of those as eyewitnesses.

ringo writes:No, you can not include characters in the story as eyewitnesses to the story. That should be obvious. A storyteller saying they were eyewitnesses doesn't make them eyewitnesses.
And even if the event did really happen, you would not get thousands of eyewitnesses telling the same story. You'd get so many different versions that it would be impossible to tell what actually happened.

Theodoric writes:Boy. You just moved the goalposts so far that not only are they not on the same field they are not even in the same town anymore.
You admit your argument is wrong and come up with a completely different argument all together.

You are doing a very good job of making it look like a scam.

jar writes:Just as Flood Geology defeats Flood Geology, the actual contents of the Bible defeats Biblical Inerrancy.
Reality always defeats fantasy.