Reincarnation

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm guessing that by "creationism" you mean this idea that God just waved his magic wand and stuff just "poofed" into existence on a lazy afternoon because there was nothing else to do.

I believe that God created everything, so does this mean that I believe in "creationism"? I also believe that God used the existing physical laws he made up to create ev ...[text shortened]... time. But I believe that behind it all was God's hand. Does this make me a "creationist" too?

I guess that's what the poll meant by 'creationism' (but hey, that's what you get from a quick google search).

I wouldn't have described you though as a creationist, as mentally this would be to lump you in the same category as Hinds. No, you have a more reasonable argument for the existence of life that 'assimilates' theories such as evolution rather than reacting to them as a direct threat to God's existence (as Hinds would do).

Perhaps, to differentiate, you're a 'longitudinal creationist Borg.'

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm guessing that by "creationism" you mean this idea that God just waved his magic wand and stuff just "poofed" into existence on a lazy afternoon because there was nothing else to do.

I believe that God created everything, so does this mean that I believe in "creationism"? I also believe that God used the existing physical laws he made up to create ev ...[text shortened]... time. But I believe that behind it all was God's hand. Does this make me a "creationist" too?

No, that makes you pragmatic. That scenario we can live with because science has no answer for what caused the BB. We have hypotheses like parent universes begatting daughter universes where a black hole in the parent universe pops out of the papa universe and starts a newborn universe, in this case, ours. Then our universe which also has black holes would begat its own baby universes and the cycle goes on ad infinitum.

Since that is at the level of hypothesis, not much in the way of actual scientific evidence outside of some anomalies in the background radiation pattern, which some people think MIGHT be indications of other universes banging up against ours like two beach balls colliding, that is still just that, hypothesis.

So all in all, if you chose to believe a deity blew smoke into our universe and created everything, there is no science to refute any of that especially since you have no problem with evolution and genetics and all that.

Young Earth creationists have no bible verses that say outright the world is 6000 years old, they just do some Mikey begat roger who begat millie who begat Eric who begat who begat etc, and thinking those verses are 100% factual and no gaps allowed, only CALCULATED a supposed date of creation.

So they are not even talking about the bible, only human analysis of the words.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I believe that God created everything, so does this mean that I believe in "creationism"? I also believe that God used the existing physical laws he made up to create everything, and so the Big Bang theory and evolution are valid means of everything coming into existence over time. But I believe that behind it all was God's hand. Does this make me a "creationist" too?

That makes you a Creationist, but not one of the stupid ones.

So, of the following two hypotheses, which is more plausible:

a) X explains everything
or
b) X + Y explains everything

where X = physical laws
and Y = something magical

?

Ever hear of Occham's Razor?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'm guessing that by "creationism" you mean this idea that God just waved his magic wand and stuff just "poofed" into existence on a lazy afternoon because there was nothing else to do.

I believe that God created everything, so does this mean that I believe in "creationism"? I also believe that God used the existing physical laws he made up to create ev ...[text shortened]... time. But I believe that behind it all was God's hand. Does this make me a "creationist" too?

You don't seem to understand that Creation requires God and evolution is the absence of God. Evolution is an atheistic belief and a doctrine of demons, not something that Christians should believe.

YouTube

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, that makes you pragmatic. That scenario we can live with because science has no answer for what caused the BB. We have hypotheses like parent universes begatting daughter universes where a black hole in the parent universe pops out of the papa universe and starts a newborn universe, in this case, ours. Then our universe which also has black holes would ...[text shortened]... of creation.

So they are not even talking about the bible, only human analysis of the words.

Originally posted by sonhouse
We have hypotheses like parent universes begatting daughter universes where a black hole in the parent universe pops out of the papa universe and starts a newborn universe, in this case, ours. Then our universe which also has black holes would begat its own baby universes and the cycle goes on ad infinitum.

Yet this does not seem like a myth to you.

You discount our adding up the ages and times in the Holy Bible to come to our age of the earth, but you have no problem with calculating the age of rocks based on assumptions about radiometic isotopes that give much different calculations depending on which is used and you must choose the one you like best.

Originally posted by moonbus
That makes you a Creationist, but not one of the stupid ones.

So, of the following two hypotheses, which is more plausible:

a) X explains everything
or
b) X + Y explains everything

where X = physical laws
and Y = something magical

?

Ever hear of Occham's Razor?

Obviously, Y is the best answer. It looks like even sonhouse would agree. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, that makes you pragmatic. That scenario we can live with because science has no answer for what caused the BB. We have hypotheses like parent universes begatting daughter universes where a black hole in the parent universe pops out of the papa universe and starts a newborn universe, in this case, ours. Then our universe which also has black holes would ...[text shortened]... of creation.

So they are not even talking about the bible, only human analysis of the words.

This is perhaps your most thoughtful post yet. 🙂

Originally posted by moonbus
That makes you a Creationist, but not one of the stupid ones.

So, of the following two hypotheses, which is more plausible:

a) X explains everything
or
b) X + Y explains everything

where X = physical laws
and Y = something magical

?

Ever hear of Occham's Razor?

Yes, I have heard of Occam's Razor, I'm not a complete boob, despite being a theist. 🙂

However, it does not automatically follow that the most simple solution MUST be the actual solution. It's just 'most likely'. And that's fine if you're just lazy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You discount our adding up the ages and times in the Holy Bible to come to our age of the earth, but you have no problem with calculating the age of rocks based on assumptions about radiometic isotopes that give much different calculations depending on which is used and you must choose the one you like best.

They're not 'assumptions', Ron, it is observed data.

'Half-life' is a real thing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't seem to understand that Creation requires God and evolution is the absence of God. Evolution is an atheistic belief and a doctrine of demons, not something that Christians should believe.

[youtube]4YLTSe7R5ss[/youtube]

Evolution is NOT the 'absence of God'. I believe God guided evolution (and before that, the 'random' actions of astrophysics) in the direction he wanted it to go. And THAT is 'Creation'.

Originally posted by RJHinds to sonhouse
You discount our adding up the ages and times in the Holy Bible to come to our age of the earth, but you have no problem with calculating the age of rocks based on assumptions about radiometic isotopes that give much different calculations depending on which is used and you must choose the one you like best.

But there are no "ages" and very few "times" in the Bible. There are genealogies but you have to assume there are no gaps. You could ask yourself questions like: "do I believe that the earth was created pre-cooled?" If you say no, then how long did it take to cool, if you say yes, the it prompts another question, why is it still hot in the middle?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Evolution is NOT the 'absence of God'. I believe God guided evolution (and before that, the 'random' actions of astrophysics) in the direction he wanted it to go. And THAT is 'Creation'.

Interesting. You are a trinitarian I believe, one who therefore believes in the (non scriptural) noun "the eternal son". Did the son evolve or was he always pre-created as Jesus?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, I have heard of Occam's Razor, I'm not a complete boob, despite being a theist. 🙂

However, it does not automatically follow that the most simple solution MUST be the actual solution. It's just 'most likely'. And that's fine if you're just lazy.

I agree that simple solutions are not necessarily the true ones. The universe is complicated, so at least some explanations are probably going to be complicated, too. The wisdom of Occham's Razor consists in paring away superfluous assumptions. Magic is one of the assumptions to be considered superfluous whenever physical laws are sufficient to explain something.

Which of the two hypotheses I mentioned above one finds more plausible is what separates theists from non-theists; rejecting magical explanations (creation ex nihilo) is what separates the scientific community from the theistic one.

RJH's "obviously" (the magical one is right and the non-magical one is wrong) represents the capitulation of reason before a mystery it cannot solve. I accept that there are mysteries in the universe and that science cannot explain everything. But any thinking theist will have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that shifting the mystery from "the universe just exists" to "God just exists" is subterfuge.

Originally posted by moonbus
I agree that simple solutions are not necessarily the true ones. The universe is complicated, so at least some explanations are probably going to be complicated, too. The wisdom of Occham's Razor consists in paring away superfluous assumptions. Magic is one of the assumptions to be considered superfluous whenever physical laws are sufficient to explain somet ...[text shortened]... ge that shifting the mystery from "the universe just exists" to "God just exists" is subterfuge.

Isn't it strange that every topic inevitably ends up with evolution and creation and the ubiquitous Smugface video?

Oh well, it was a long shot anyway...

Originally posted by CalJust
Isn't it strange that every topic inevitably ends up with evolution and creation and the ubiquitous Smugface video?

Oh well, it was a long shot anyway...

We really needed someone to come forward who believed in reincarnation, for the thread to remain on topic. Perhaps Dasa will discover it next time he logs on.