My challenge to creationists

[Frozenwolf150]

Since this has come up numerous times in several other threads in the past, I thought I'd save time by posing the challenge here, officially, once and for all.

Many a creationist has alleged proof for the existence of God, whether as a challenge to evolution, or as a vindication of their belief in scripture. God is the creator, they say. God intelligently designed everything we see, they say. The proof is immanent, just look around you.

To which I would say, show me a single observable or testable instance of God in the act of creating or designing something.

I have asked this numerous times, but to no avail. I will not accept a quote from scripture. This is using the Bible to prove the Bible is true, which is circular logic. I will not accept an alleged logical proof of the existence of God. These are not predicated on any observation or empirical evidence, and are riddled with logical fallacies. I will only accept something that can be seen or tested experimentally.

As a reminder, attempting to find flaws in the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang does not establish the validity of creationism by default. This means that arguments from incredulity are out, and a false dichotomy does not prove creationism. Evolution could be completely false. That does not mean God exists, or creationism is real. Creationism must be able to stand on its own, with its own evidence.

So, creationists, what have you got? I'm waiting.

 

[Loss Leader]

Heck, I'd settle for an internally consistent definition of god.

 

[Wowbagger]

That's a good challenge.

I prefer to ask them for practical applications of Creationism, myself. But, yours seems like it would yield similar results... or lack thereof.

 

[Chernobyl X1]

Not to hijack the thread but wouldn't it be easier to challenge a creationist to give one piece of evidence that falsifies evolution? Since creationists feel evolution requires a "belief", and is not based on facts, they have every opportunity to put this theory in the trash bin.

I had a conversation once with a woman who said "I'm not a creationist. I just believe God started the process and the rest happened by itself" I just couldn't find it within me to correct her.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, it's not a good challenge, because I don't know of any creationists that believe that creation is ongoing. God did all of his creation in the six days of Genesis and that's it. So your challenge is impossible to fulfil.

 

[marplots]

To which I would say, show me a single observable or testable instance of God in the act of creating or designing something.

Can you be more specific? What I mean is, how do I know you won't just hand-wave any example away with the comment, "that's not God?"

If you get to be the sole arbiter, then the experiment fails because the measuring instrument is broken. You are, in essence, requesting that I convince you. This may be impossible, not based on any truth value, but on your prior assumptions or capriciousness. If you are incapable of recognizing God's hand already, one assumes you never will.

It's no wonder you don't get volunteers to play your game.

 

[jj]

Heck, I'd settle for an internally consistent definition of god.

I hope you're not holding your breath, but that's a great question to ask at the right time, isn't it?

 

[SezMe]

To which I would say, show me a single observable or testable instance of God in the act of creating or designing something.

I'd like you to put on your creationist hat and give, say, three examples that you would accept. I know they won't be real, but I want to see what you are fishing for.

 

[TimCallahan]

The OP is on the right track, regardless of the creationist response. Too many times we are asked by them to defend evolution. Rather than debating evolution or asking for creationists to provide a proof falsifying evolution, we should demand some debates on creation science and demand of them a verifiable / falsifiable test for creation science / intelligent design. After all, if it is truly a science, they should be able to come up with such a test and to abide by its results.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, creationists, what have you got? I'm waiting.

You expect them to debate honestly?

 

[Tony]

Since this has come up numerous times in several other threads in the past, I thought I'd save time by posing the challenge here, officially, once and for all.

Many a creationist has alleged proof for the existence of God, whether as a challenge to evolution, or as a vindication of their belief in scripture. God is the creator, they say. God intelligently designed everything we see, they say. The proof is immanent, just look around you.

To which I would say, show me a single observable or testable instance of God in the act of creating or designing something.

They could/would say that God's creation was complete thousands of years ago and all the proof we need is in Genesis.

If they say that, you could reply with an appeal Matthew 18:19-20 which says:

"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

With that established, you could run an experiment where atleast two Christians pray/ask Yahweh to spontaneously create a new creature in their presence. If Yahweh does it, then he exists. If he doesn't do it, either he doesn't exists or the people you have praying aren't real Christians, in which case you would need to find some new, realer Christians to re-do the experiment.

 

[SezMe]

With that established, you could run an experiment where atleast two Christians pray/ask Yahweh to spontaneously create a new creature in their presence. If Yahweh does it, then he exists. If he doesn't do it, either he doesn't exists or the people you have praying aren't real Christians, in which case you would need to find some new, realer Christians to re-do the experiment.

Won't work. The "mysterious ways" trope is the ultimate gt-out-jail explanation.

 

[Minoosh]

With that established, you could run an experiment where atleast two Christians pray/ask Yahweh to spontaneously create a new creature in their presence. If Yahweh does it, then he exists. If he doesn't do it, either he doesn't exists or the people you have praying aren't real Christians, in which case you would need to find some new, realer Christians to re-do the experiment.

Because "real" Christians always get whatever they pray for? I'm not following the logic.

Edit: Sorry, I did not read the entire quote from Matthew, which does suggest that what two or more people want will be done. However, I would be interested in any alternative translations that have been floated over the years.

And: I have seen reference to creation being ongoing; not by people who profess to take Genesis literally, though.

 

[Minoosh]

Jeeminy, what a can of worms:

http://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/18-19.htm

I'm not sure who these folks are; I just plugged the quote into Google. It speaks to why I boggle at people who claim to take the Bible literally - because, IMO, it is impossible to take it literally in its entirety, and even with my minuscule knowledge of Bible scholarship, I can identify passages that are clearly intended to be taken as metaphor.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

No, it's not a good challenge, because I don't know of any creationists that believe that creation is ongoing. God did all of his creation in the six days of Genesis and that's it. So your challenge is impossible to fulfil.

Oh come now. Even creationists have had to admit that life still demonstrates minor changes and adaptations, long after the initial creation was completed. After all, we can directly observe these changes. However, they say this only constitutes "microevolution" not "macroevolution" and therefore doesn't count. If a creationist really does believe that life today is static, then they are beyond help.

Can you be more specific? What I mean is, how do I know you won't just hand-wave any example away with the comment, "that's not God?"

If you get to be the sole arbiter, then the experiment fails because the measuring instrument is broken. You are, in essence, requesting that I convince you. This may be impossible, not based on any truth value, but on your prior assumptions or capriciousness. If you are incapable of recognizing God's hand already, one assumes you never will.

It's no wonder you don't get volunteers to play your game.

It's simple. If God is all-powerful, he could spell out his name in atoms, or speak while he's doing it, or engage in a conversation, or show his face, or come down and shake my hand. I'm open to evidence, and am not wedded to the moniker of atheist. Skepticism first, atheism second, as I say.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Rebuttal would be a double tap.

 

[marplots]

It's simple. If God is all-powerful, he could spell out his name in atoms, or speak while he's doing it, or engage in a conversation, or show his face, or come down and shake my hand. I'm open to evidence, and am not wedded to the moniker of atheist. Skepticism first, atheism second, as I say.

And, as an all-powerful being, he would do these things at your behest?

I have another idea. God doesn't want you to believe. He has created you as you are, to demand the evidence you demand and reject the evidence others consider sufficient. We are not testing God here, we are testing mankind, in the manner of separating the wheat from the chaff.

But as to your question, have you ever seen someone undergoing a conversion experience? It is thought to be a direct action of God (or, some would say the Holy Spirit) on a particular person to alter their whole worldview. Or, if you like, you could ask believers about answers to their prayers. In either case, it is God's hand in the world, in real time and in 3D.

My suspicion is that neither of those impress you much, because, although you can observe them, you do not experience them directly.

Do you see the problem?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

And, as an all-powerful being, he would do these things at your behest?

I have another idea. God doesn't want you to believe. He has created you as you are, to demand the evidence you demand and reject the evidence others consider sufficient. We are not testing God here, we are testing mankind, in the manner of separating the wheat from the chaff.

I've often thought the same thing myself.

But as to your question, have you ever seen someone undergoing a conversion experience? It is thought to be a direct action of God (or, some would say the Holy Spirit) on a particular person to alter their whole worldview. Or, if you like, you could ask believers about answers to their prayers. In either case, it is God's hand in the world, in real time and in 3D.

My suspicion is that neither of those impress you much, because, although you can observe them, you do not experience them directly.

Do you see the problem?

Can these experiences be replicated across different individuals? Would they be consistent across cultures and time periods, the way a math problem is? Is there a way to test them?

If I were to ask believers belonging to different faiths, I would get widely differing answers.

 

[marplots]

Can these experiences be replicated across different individuals? Would they be consistent across cultures and time periods, the way a math problem is? Is there a way to test them?

If I were to ask believers belonging to different faiths, I would get widely differing answers.

You would get different answers. The reason is because God has agency. If God were some natural phenomenon, like gravity, one would expect consistent results, repeatable results. But with agency, that goes out the window.

Then too, we have the filtering problem. I suppose we could find people who would tell us that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy. And from their own experiences with him, maybe he was. If we cannot capture the essence of a person whose deeds we can videotape, how much more difficult must it be to capture one where we only get impressions second hand?

I think this is why we are instructed to seek God on our own.

Even if we propose a single God, with fixed attributes, people come pre-biased with whatever religion they have been raised with. I have no good ideas how to change this state of affairs.

From my perspective as an atheist, I can only say I've found a worldview which suits me and allows me to operate satisfactorily in the course of my own life. But, I cannot say that the religious do any worse than I do. Both tracks seem to suffice.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

If they're going to claim, without evidence, that God has agency and can switch up the results whenever he feels like it, then the idea of creationism being a legitimate science goes right out the window. Thus creationism shoots itself in the foot again.