The mind of a creationist

well, seeing as how you're ignorant of it, what's the point of conjecture?

When you burst into every thread beating your chest that god is real, that you've seen him and spoken with him, what else is one to assume other than you're lying?
 
When you burst into every thread beating your chest that god is real, that you've seen him and spoken with him, what else is one to assume other than you're lying?

you could assume i'm telling the truth.

but better yet, assume nothing.
 
you could assume i'm telling the truth.

but better yet, assume nothing.

I don't doubt that you have "personal experience with God", whatever that may mean. Many people say they know God.

But my question is: On the grounds of what do you think that others should believe you or at least take your statements seriously?
 
How? How can we make sure that we are utilized by God, but not from something else such as subconsciousness, natural or social insticts/background, personal experience, learned things, etc.
i would argue that god has had influence in those things to let you see things from unique perspective...
as far as the question 'how can we be sure'.....we can't...most ppl in organized religion leave that responsibility to the pastor/priest to tell them they are doing what god wants(do as your told)..me..i have a tough time believing any one man knows what god wants..i have to question them, to test them, most pastors don't like that..they want you to 'do as your told' specially when their answer becomes 'i don't know'..
How can we differentiate God among other utilizers?
i think thats a long term question as anyone can 'fake' god in the short term..but if you know the person for a long time you can generally tell..

My question is, when we eliminate the measured proof (objective one), how can we group the rest (subjective ones). Because you might believe in God, and someone else could believe in God, and someone else could also believe in God, it goes like that. What is the common factor, power, concept that you all believe in.
this question is loaded..
any answer i can come up with does not apply to ALL.....
In other words, how can you be sure that you are all believing in same God? My guess is, if you all imagine the same model (could be Christian God, could be Muslim Allah, could be ancient Greek Zeus), it is more likely that the members of the same group (in this case "same religion") will imagine the same model of God.
IMO it is the same god in all these religions,each one has a piece of the 'who is god' puzzle, just because i believe god is 'this' way, does not mean your belief that god is 'that' way is wrong..we would have to discuss the differences to see if there is a common denominator,to discover a better picture of 'who god is'
So religion becomes the common measurement of different subjectives (followers). Is that so?
i think that would be an accurate statement
And moreover, for a believer, there is no qualitative difference between objective (measured) proof and subjective (emotional) proof. They have same importance and value in a believer's eyes. Is that the case?
this is subjective to each believer..
but the believer does(SHOULD) not devalue any wisdom,knowledge just cause there is no measurable proof..
Does this statement contradict your above "god can still utilize you whether you believe in him or not.."? If it doesn't, how?
when god puts something in your path he doesn't usually advertise that it is him doing it..when that object in your path causes you to make decisions that help him with his plan(don't ask me what that plan is..) he is utilizing you,

What I am asking is this: What are the elementary rules, minimum requirements, the logic of "proof" in order to come to a conclusion that God exists?
if there were a predefined set of rules/requirements for proof of god..do you think we would be having this conversation?..would believers have such a tough time convincing anyone that god exists...would believer even need to convince anyone that god exists if there were proofs?

if god were proven,how would that affect the choices we make?didn't he give us the ability to choose? if he were proven, wouldn't WE as humans assume he doesn't want us to make our own choices?and completely defeat what he wants from us?

You might have guessed that I wouldn't be satisfied with the argument of "everything is so complex, therefore God exists". The reason that I will not buy this is that there are many systems (natural -life, atoms- or manmade -internet-) out there working without a specific controller or particular creator. Or at least I can see that they are working without a supreme controller. Randomness, interdependencies, environmental effects, time, heredity and evolution can handle any of these system without a regulator. So what type of proof mechanism can tell me that I am wrong? Because as you mentioned above, "God can (by the way; "can" or "does?") still utilize me whether I believe in him or not..", so I would like to run a sort of proving mechanism into my thinking (or my emotions if you like), so I can detect or realize God's existence. So what is it? What is the logical mechanism behind this proof?
i don't view him as a controller..he is there waiting for me to ask him for his advice,when i do he will give that advice(usually through someone or some situation) it is still my choice to use that advice or not..i can choose to dismiss it as 'one' mans opinion..or i can choose to utilize such advice..
there is still no surety as to whether it was 'one' mans opinion or from god
this is where faith tends to come in..
 
i would argue that god has had influence in those things to let you see things from unique perspective...

i have a tough time believing any one man knows what god wants..

You contradict yourself. First you make claim as to what god wants and then claim you question anyone who says they know what god wants.

IMO it is the same god in all these religions,each one has a piece of the 'who is god' puzzle, just because i believe god is 'this' way, does not mean your belief that god is 'that' way is wrong..

Actually, it does. And, if we were to use your logic, all scriptures would be pointless as they describe gods absolutely and without question.

we would have to discuss the differences to see if there is a common denominator,to discover a better picture of 'who god is'

Or, if you weren't completely deluded, you would find there is no common denominator other than the non-existence of gods.

when god puts something in your path he doesn't usually advertise that it is him doing it..when that object in your path causes you to make decisions that help him with his plan(don't ask me what that plan is..) he is utilizing you

Again, you make claims as to what god wants. You contradict yourself again.


would believer even need to convince anyone that god exists if there were proofs?

Of course not, if there were evidence of gods, we would ALL believe.

if god were proven,how would that affect the choices we make?

The world would most likely change dramatically. All religions and beliefs would be scrapped in favor of whatever god wanted.

didn't he give us the ability to choose?

That would be claiming to know what god wants and you would be contradicting yourself again.

he is there waiting for me to ask him for his advice,when i do he will give that advice

Where was he when a quarter million of his followers asked for advice on how to survive a tsunami?
 
When you burst into every thread beating your chest that god is real, that you've seen him and spoken with him, what else is one to assume other than you're lying?


Deuteronomy 18:22
When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

or her.
 
I don't doubt that you have "personal experience with God", whatever that may mean. Many people say they know God.

But my question is: On the grounds of what do you think that others should believe you or at least take your statements seriously?

a lack of cynicism. open-mindedness. why wouldn't they?
 
yes i am. you and earth will see. it's just a matter of time...

Reminds me of the wackos who stand on street corners hoisting signs that read, "The End is Nigh"

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
 
baftan;
i would like to answer you, if you did exist, but since i have no proof for your existence, then you don't exist, and there's no need to answer you.

I hope you do not construct your belief according to the voices you hear. Forget about if I exist or not, consider you accidentally come up with my post, and consider I do not exist anymore, because that doesn't make any difference in terms of the existence of OP.

don't reply unless you're ready for a beating. O'nonexistent one..

If you had something to say on this issue, you would have instead of childish bitching.
 
1) 'creationist' is not synonymous with 'religious believer'
If you check out my sentence you will see that there are commas between "creationists, religious, and believers". I know religious is an adjective and I should have added some noun after that such as "people" for example, and I passed that. Because in the end I see some common denominator between those who practice or "experience" these conditions. Believing in something can not be proven outside of the him/her mind.
2) I think the options you present are off. Some people base their beliefs on their experience. The religion is working for them in some way and fits their experiences. Proof is only an issue if they are trying to convince someone else they TOO should believe. A religious person making the claim that you ALSO should believe then should provide reasons. But even there I see most proselytisers advocating that the potential convert or believer PARTICIPATE in some practice or another - come to church, join a ceremony, begin meditating, meet the trained representative, etc. - rather than engaging in efforts to prove the existence of God.

As far as I understood, you are offering me to join one or two of these group rituals and try to grasp their belief. No need for that, because what they have been doing hasn't changed for centuries and many of their rituals can be easily found on internet, whether it is christian or muslim discourse. I am not after that. I am after logic, and it doesn't have to be materialistic logic necessarily, just a logic behind proof of existence for anything.


'Prove to me one can lucid dream?'
The existence of personal experience is one thing, and to say that everything else is created by a lucid dream is something else. Instead of this I recommend you to watch this short talk on hallucinations.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/oliver_sacks_what_hallucination_reveals_about_our_minds.html
You will see that through brain scanning and outside observation by someone else will tell you if you are having a dream or sensing the reality.

'No, I want you to prove to me that you can lucid dream.'

Yes, sort of. So person can realize that he/she is dreaming (imagining) instead of accepting his/her dream as a reality.
 
Reminds me of the wackos who stand on street corners hoisting signs that read, "The End is Nigh"

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

but i'm not one of those people. it just arbitrarily makes you feel better to associate me with them. now who is delusional?
 
I hope you do not construct your belief according to the voices you hear. Forget about if I exist or not, consider you accidentally come up with my post, and consider I do not exist anymore, because that doesn't make any difference in terms of the existence of OP.
an OP written by nobody, is nothing, do you sit trying to read and understand a group of alphabet cards lying on the ground?

you can't run away from it by saying "forget about if i exist"..cuz you sure as hell aren't "forgetting that god exists"..

childish bitching indeed..
 
Back
Top