It’s not rational because there’s no logical or empirical reason to assume that it’s true.
You have a point in that it’s not logically or empirically falsifiable to claim that an omnipotent supernatural being created the universe and fixed it up so that it looked like it had a much earlier natural origin. It’s true that if such a deity did such a thing, we’d have no reliable way of finding out the truth of the matter one way or the other.
However, arbitrary and unsupported hypotheses generally don’t qualify as “rational” just because they’re unfalsifiable. If the traditional Judeo-Christian creation myth is rational, then so are similar claims about the cosmogonic activities of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There is nothing wrong with the Goddidit explanation for believers,* but it is not rational. It is true that one might start with an axiom of faith and then draw rational conclusions about a created world from that starting point, (although there are quite a few logical leaps that one must include, such as that God deliberately planted false evidence for a different story), but it is not a rational approach to the evidence.
Although, it should be pointed out that there are many believers who accept the rational explanation of evolution.
I understand what you’re saying and I think it’s a valid point. I don’t think we should refrain from using bigot when it applies just because too many adults can’t grasp nuance. I think the otherwise decent people who out of laziness, tradition, religious indoctrination , or whatever reason, still oppose SSM may need the shock of discovering they are being bigots , whether they are aware or not , and no matter how uncomfortable it feels. Not viscous baseball bat wielding bigots, but bigots none the less. I don’t think their goal is to intentionally harm anyone , but they are participating in harming others, and need to be aware.
I agree, we are winning and the public consciousness is changing as it has in the past. Opposition to same SSM reminds me of " I have nothing against the blacks, as long as they know their place." Would we say someone who felt that way, but wasn’t violent, was not a bigot? I don’t think we should use hateful bigot to repeatedly club everyone who opposes SSM, but I think it might be useful to remind people of the definition and suggest they thoughtfully examine their reasons.
I think the whole civil union thing is a last grasp to reconcile lingering bigotry and the real desire to try and be fair, or at least want to be perceived as fair. Separate but legally equal. I suggest that the part of our humanity that pushes us to separate, is irreconcilable with the desire for equality. You can’t have it both ways.
We see believers create all kinds of convoluted thinking to try and hold on to beliefs that have zero evidence and don’t really make sense , in some attempt to be or feel rational.
Well, you seem to agree that a God is possible. Now, if there were this God, this all-powerful being, theoretically he could have found a way to compress the history of the earth into 6,000 years, and we simply don’t understand how it all fits together yet. But one might fairly characterize the YEC’s position, say, that the dinosaurs were around fewer than 6,000 years ago as non-rational, not because there is a piece or two of evidence arguing against it, but due the massive amount of empirical evidence against it. Is that right?
Possible?
I happen to believe a God is inevitable and necessary. But my belief is irrelevant to this point.
I cannot accept a creator God who would deliberately create a world that looks old, but Who will punish His children for believing that He has told the truth with His creation. My God is capable of using metaphors and allegory for teaching, it is not a requirement that these philosophical concepts have an empirical existence.
Young Earth Creationism is terrible science, and as it restricts God to one origin myth, I feel it is also terrible theology.
Go ahead and stipulate that we’ll answer all your questions the way you want, so that you can make your Big Reveal/Gotcha post, and we can point out how your comparison or contrast to YEC rebuttals, whichever you’re planning, is off-base.
Just as a reminder, you won’t find Christ saying anything at all about gays. Everything on that topic in the Bible is in the Old Testament, along with a whole lot of other things you really don’t want to claim to believe in. Christ did, however, have a great deal to say about loving and respecting and taking care of each other as much as ourselves.
How about you answer questions the way you want? Or not. I’ll have you know that I fired the sniper that I had trained on you all this time, which was no doubt forcing you to respond to certain posts of mine.
Consider them all answered “yes.” I just can’t wait for the big reveal, I know it’s gonna be a doozy!
(Really, though, this sort of too-clever-by-half argument you’re making is pretty annoying. It’s time to make the argument, or not. Don’t think you’re going to trap people into a position they don’t hold through some tenuous pseudosocratic method.)
The bet here is that he’s going to tell us he’s already made the point multiple times, and if we’re too lazy to go back and read everything he’s ever posted, he’s not going to spoonfeed it to us, nyah nyah nyah.
Why would I not believe that God is possible? I am a believer.
I simply recognize the difference between ideas based solely on rational thought and ideas based in fatih.
I specifically noted that if one began with an axiomatic belief in (a) God, one could derive rational ideas from that. However, given that the starting point requires a leap of faith, the whole edifice is not based on rationality, regardless how rational one may keep the discussion after that starting point has been granted. Belief in a 6,000 year old Earth, however, does not require just one axiomatic leap of faith, but a whole series of separate beliefs in which the ways in which rocks form changes from some earlier time to the present, the speed of light changes from some earlier point to the present, fairly clear evidence of development is either deliberately or “coincidentally” falsified in the geological record, the regular changes to DNA have sped up and slowed down at different times throughout history, ice cores showing ages in excess of 800,000 years have to have been manufactured in a much shorter time, etc. Not only is there a massive amount of empirical evidence against a 6,000 year old Earth, but most of the evidence requires multiple, non-rational, leaps of faith to reject them.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
I find it curious that some Christians are apparently fully comfortable with the notion of a God who painstakingly plants “false clues” in an attempt to deceive and mislead, but are willing to take at face value the ostensible written word of this same trickster God. If your God is capable of messing with people’s heads on a universal scale (literally), why couldn’t He just as easily have planted false clues and disinformation throughout his instruction manual?
“No, but seriously, I know you feel dumb about falling for that whole age-of-the-Earth prank, and I feel bad, really… but I swear, hand to Myself, that every word in this book is true!”