The "Ron Paul is a Creationist" talking point.

[Sola_Fide]

lol. if you are so weak minded as not to be able to think for self, god help you.

liberty is not a christian idea. stop forcing that. It's pathetic, you fool. Simple history will support me, and other rational people on this board in that regard.

I REALLY hope you are joking, and only trying to incite arguments. Nothing you ever say is intelligent.

Wow.

This is just a bunch of ridiculous, biased assertions backed with no arguments.

 

[pcosmar]

Talking Point?

I think there are a great many more important talking points.

Well unless you are just looking for something to talk down.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well if you believe there is MORE evidence for creationism, then my question is even more relevant. Why do you relegate it to your personal belief only? I mean if you believe that there is MORE scientific evidence for creation, then you believe it as a “truth”, “reality”, “fact”, and “science”; and it’s at that point only “religious” by name – not by character.

I suppose people interject religion and faith as if they are one and the same. Deistic beliefs are still religious, but they are based on reason and logic, and are not based on faith or mysticism. There are no dogmatic texts, no interventionist being to worship, just what reason reveals to us in our observable existence.

I akin it to if you were a computer AI inside a fictitious synthetic world. There are rules governing the synthetic universe. Obviously these weren't organically formed, and it stands to reason any set of laws who you cannot break would have been created. Everything we know leads us to this logic and observable fact. Do I know absolutely that the Universe was created? Not for certain, but again, it is the best explanation there is, and until a better one is put forth I will believe in this. I think science is heading in a very deistic direction. They are mutual partners. Again, most people who believe in a Universe that was created and not just always here, don't see it as an act of 'God' in the abstract (Where I do). It is up to personal interpretation, but what we know so far points us to believe that indeed, the Universe was created, and has not merely 'always been'.

I certainly don't believe in the Christian creationist theoram. In fact, it is pretty well easy to dismantle that. However, creation & evolution do go hand in hand pretty well, and well again, it is up to personal interpration if you wish to call the Universe 'God' or not.

 

[idirtify]

Blah, blah, blah, idirtify.

You just want to argue for argument's sake. I refuse to partake.

If one of us wants to “argue for argument's sake”, wouldn’t it be the one that complained about the act of disagreeing? Actually, I can’t think of too many things that would be more argumentative than that, ON A DISCUSSION FORUM.

 

[idirtify]

I suppose people interject religion and faith as if they are one and the same. Deistic beliefs are still religious, but they are based on reason and logic, and are not based on faith or mysticism. There are no dogmatic texts, no interventionist being to worship, just what reason reveals to us in our observable existence.

I akin it to if you were a computer AI inside a fictitious synthetic world. There are rules governing the synthetic universe. Obviously these weren't organically formed, and it stands to reason any set of laws who you cannot break would have been created. Everything we know leads us to this logic and observable fact. Do I know absolutely that the Universe was created? Not for certain, but again, it is the best explanation there is, and until a better one is put forth I will believe in this. I think science is heading in a very deistic direction. They are mutual partners. Again, most people who believe in a Universe that was created and not just always here, don't see it as an act of 'God' in the abstract (Where I do). It is up to personal interpretation, but what we know so far points us to believe that indeed, the Universe was created, and has not merely 'always been'.

I certainly don't believe in the Christian creationist theoram. In fact, it is pretty well easy to dismantle that. However, creation & evolution do go hand in hand pretty well, and well again, it is up to personal interpration if you wish to call the Universe 'God' or not.

Virtually your whole post tries to explain how the deist god is more scientific, but that does not answer the question. If you think your religion is so scientific, why do you still call it “religion”? And your last line intensifies the question. If you see your deist god as scientific as you describe, why should your belief only be kept as a “personal interpretation”? You see, OOH you are obliterating the line between science and religion, but OTOH you are maintaining that line.

Let me suggest the answer, which reveals why you are reluctant to admit it: Calling it GOD should only be kept as a “personal interpretation” (in contrast to “political policy”) precisely because it is a less evidenced interpretation.