How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sabastious

  If I am not mistaken, disproving a claim entails demonstrating why the proofs for that claim fail. Thus I think that in the absence of the assumed proofs for the claim "the universe was created by an intelligent being," one simply cannot begin to "disprove" it. Do you have support(s) for this claim which may be assessed?

  The burden of proof IS on me and the single most important piece of evidence is existence itself. I use US (and everything) as the proof, now you have to disprove that we were created by a self-aware entity capable of creating everything.

  -Sab
• 

  MrFreeze

  It is like trying to prove a negative. You can't do that. If I handed you a book and said "prove I haven't opened this book in the last year" you couldn't do it.

  Prove Zeus didn't create everything.
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  I use US (and everything) as the proof, now you have to disprove that we were created by a self-aware entity capable of creating everything.

  I'm sorry, but the argument "we exist, therefore intelligent creator" is simply too vague for me to critque. For me, this argument is like the argument "presents exist, therefore Santa" and is simply not specific enough. Perhaps you can elaborate?

  Mebaqqer
• 

  sabastious

  It is like trying to prove a negative. You can't do that. If I handed you a book and said "prove I haven't opened this book in the last year" you couldn't do it.

  Yes, but what if I said that I have evidence that you didn't open the book, would you not inquire?

  Prove Zeus didn't create everything.

  Because Greek Mythology doesn't say that, Uranus would be a better explanation or even Chronos. I am not talking about specific personifications of the Source, I am talking about the Source, which if it exists had a hand in the Big Bang.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  I'm sorry, but the argument "we exist, therefore intelligent creator" is simply to vague for me to critque. For me, this argument is like the argument "presents exist, therefore Santa" and is simply not specific enough. Perhaps you can elaborate?

  The argument is that "we exist, therefore maybe an intelligent creator" or even "we exist, why not an intelligent creator?" The burdern of proof is satisfied by the fact of existence and intelligent life within it.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  For the reason I gave you already - its god-of-the-gaps. It stops further research and closes minds. Its bad science and equally bad theology.
• 

  sabastious

  For the reason I gave you already - its god-of-the-gaps. It stops further research and closes minds. Its bad science and equally bad theology.

  God of the gaps is not a fallacy, it's just often used fallaciously. Take dark matter for instance, or the Higgs particles. They were gaps for a long time and now they are not. Does that mean we should have never considered them as valid ideological pursuits?

  -Sab
• 

  MrFreeze

  That's just exactly my point. Why doesn't it make sense? You can't prove Zeus didn't create everything. You're just speculating! The Greeks got it wrong! Now prove me wrong!

  What proof could you offer that I didn't open the book in the last year? The book is Lord of the Rings and it's a used copy I bought 10 years ago. Prove I haven't opened it in the last year.
• 

  cofty

  you are saying you have evidence that the gap shouldn't be used to explain the unexplainable.

  Stop telling people what they are saying.
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  The argument is that "we exist, therefore maybe an intelligent creator" or even "we exist, why not an intelligent creator?"

  The central claim is "the universe was created by an intelligent being" so that I would assume that support for this claim would not entail any weasel words as if the claim where "the universe might have been created by an intelligent being." In this way, the argument "we exist, therefore intelligent creator" is the most applicable summarization to the claim given your argument which likewise was not formulated as a potential: "I use US (and everything) as the proof, now you have to disprove that we were created by a self-aware entity capable of creating everything." Thus switching the affirmative into a potential or changing it to a question does not really work.

  Mebaqqer