Could it be?

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it possible that our universe was created by a God, but that the theory of evolution also is true?

Meaning, did God create this universe with purpose that it evolve as a evolution on its own?

I think so. Otherwise, I have to consider that God created false evidence to make us think that evolution took place. Considering that would invalidate a lot of valuable teaching and my entire concept of the Judeo-Christian God.

 

[rational experiences]

All the thoughts and beliefs however are only and just human.

All questions and answers by humans only.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If it was not created or suddenly rose from nothing, how could there be a evolution in the first place

I think he means that creation is process of making something new and evolution is the change in something that already exists. To different concepts, but related.

 

[rational experiences]

I think so. Otherwise, I have to consider that God created false evidence to make us think that evolution took place. Considering that would invalidate a lot of valuable teaching and my entire concept of the Judeo-Christian God.

Human man's theory of evolution is based on bones that he dug up claiming human form.

A human can dig up deceased modern bones and say human and if mutated would not be like their known healthy human skeleton.

All said by healthy human bone ownership.

Preceding that thesis men said a cosmic reaction created earth a planet it's heavens and all varieties of billions of forms in 6 days.

Scientific two thesis.

Humans as consciousness live in the conditions supporting human life and consciousness. Planet present. Heavens present.

To claim human consciousness.

So God six day thesis said by a human cannot be correct.

Human consciousness.

If you said God caused human mutated life in human chosen sin of man you would be correct. By living the owned evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think he means that creation is process of making something new and evolution is the change in something that already exists. To different concepts, but related.

Except that change, mutability, inconstancy, is the fundamental nature of the material world. Quantum Mechanics appears to be telling physicists what Buddhist philosophers intuitively understood millenia ago; that at the granular, sub atomic level, events are the natural world's only substance, impermanence it's one true quality. Rather than the universe being brought into existence and then changing, change itself is what was brought into existence. Transience is what the universe is.

"It is better to consider a particle not as a permanent entity but rather as an instantaneous event. Sometimes these events form chains that give the illusion of being permanent, but only in particular circumstances and only for an extremely brief period of time in each individual case."
- Erwin Schrodinger

Of course, events take place in time, and time as we experience it, may very well be an illusion caused by perspective. But that's another matter. The OP asked whether God and evolution could co-exist. That entirely depends on one's perspective, experience, and inclination; for me, it's impossible to look up at the Milky Way on a clear night and not find the universe, and our conscious ability to experience it and wonder about it, truly miraculous.

We are all miracles, living in a time of miracles. You would think that any human being with their eyes and minds open, could not fail to sense this, yet they do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it possible that our universe was created by a God, but that the theory of evolution also is true?

Meaning, did God create this universe with purpose that it evolve as a evolution on its own?

I don't know if that's possible.
In my world, a possibility must be demonstrated to actually being possible before it can be called such.

Can it be ruled out that such is the case? No....

However, it seems to me that given all that we know about the universe, it seems incredibly unlikely that such is possible.

Also.... and this is a coffin nail for me.... What does "possible" and "impossible" actually mean?

I look at it in a pretty straightforward way. "possible" are those things that according to the laws of nature could happen. "impossible" are those things that according to the laws of nature could not happen.

The "supernatural" (miracles etc) as it is commonly defined, is in that sense NOT possible. Because its very operations requires the suspension / violation of natural laws. That's what "miracles" actually are. Things that are impossible, which happen anyway.


So from that perspective, I'm quite comfortable saying that anything supernatural (like gods) is impossible.

 

[rational experiences]

I learnt that humans gave one word a description a miracle then abused its meaning of purpose one word.

Life is said is its owned miracle.

The life sacrifice of man who survived an evil occult irradiation attack he then quotes is a miracle. Yet it was a miracle that he survived. What using the meaning of one holy word in an incorrect definitive meant.

O God said science is a solid object cooling, still heated inside but cooling. Knew.

O God said the Satanic science occultist theist machine user then caused Gods seal stone to release into particle release when it had been sealed and fused. As he has to break ground seals to get to what he knows is converting materials.

He introduced two of a God state, natural and artificial causes. Artificial is not natural law it is natural law that a man chose to change.

So he lives mind affected as the heavens owned a Sun radiation mass attack, space and cooling pressures changed, as did Sun as its preceding mass....cooling ensued, leaving a particle of radiation, not a radiating particle in Earths atmosphere that he stated the movement of God as spirit gases, water oxygen evaporation voiding space had dealt with.

Forming the O G spiral O D status taught. Gods flow movement. That circumstance has interfered with his brain function as a theist since he caused it.

As in the heavens the radiation particle is a variant to ground radiating particles of non complete conversion back to a space hole. Between the two transmitting one natural one science caused his mind false theorises.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it was not created or suddenly rose from nothing, how could there be a evolution in the first place

I think that what he means is that evolution is not dependent on HOW the universe came into being.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can not show you God, But how can you be so sure God does not exist If you have not found God?

That's a strange question.....................
It seems to be saying that in order to know that a god does not exist, one would have to find god first?

As for me, I don't "know" that god does NOT exist. I also don't "know" that bigfoot does NOT exist.
It just seems to be incredibly unlikely.

First, because it doesn't fit everything we actually DO know.
Secondly, after thousands of years of people looking for god, nobody has ever found him/her/it.
How many more millennia must that search continue before concluding that there's probably no such thing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most atheists in the world won't care about this, but the evangelical atheists loose one of their missionary weapons when theists embrace evolution. Thats an issue.

That sounds like something you merely want to be true, instead of something that is actually true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good question.
I might be wrong, but our universe was created due to the need for a place for physical beings to experience pain and suffering so that we can go back to God when we realize why we suffer.
, and have ended our own suffering in this life. Since I do believe we are a part of God in some way, we would have to go back to our original existence without a physical body

So where were you before you were born?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or perhaps God created a universe that was fully evolved already with fully evolved species from the start, and since sin has entered the picture, the universe and us as a species has been devolving ever since.

The very concept of "devolving" is nonsensical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not possible (because of irreducible complexity in design of some systems).

IC as an argument against evolution, has been refuted a thousand times over

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

95% certain, is pretty strongly convinced about something we have no evidence for.

How certain are you that people are NOT being abducted by aliens?
How certain are you that bigfoot does NOT exist?


The fact that there is no evidence, is precisely the reason why the existence of god (or bigfoot, or alien abduction) is extremely unlikely.

It's the positive claim ("god exists", "alien abduction is real", "bigfoot exists") that has the burden of proof, after all. It is logically impossible to demonstrate that a thing does NOT exist (unless the thing itself is defined in self-contradictory terms).

So can you slight the theist who lacks evidence too, and call their's as a matter of blind faith, and your near certainty as not?

Yes. Because it's their claim.
The near certainty expressed by the atheist, concerns a response to the claims of theism.
It's the theist that requires faith, because they are the ones that believe something without evidence.

The atheist is the one who does NOT believe something without evidence, for the very reason that there is no evidence.

It's the same reason why you don't believe in bigfoot or alien abduction.

Just saying. I'm fine with either way someone wants to see things, without solid evidence supporting them. But you can't claim one is a matter of faith and the other not then, given the lack of evidence for both.

You're confused.

The claim being evaluated and addressed is "god exists".
This is a case where the lack of evidence in support of this claim, becomes evidence against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it was not for my religious belief in God, I would not be alive today

How so?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just like it is no problems for people to have their spiritual or religious belief.

That's not true across the board, and you know it.

If I ask the question "give me an example where someone's religious beliefs caused great problems" and I bet people will already have thought of 3 examples before finishing reading this sentence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The very concept of "devolving" is nonsensical.

What? Why?

 

[Spirit of Light]

So where were you before you were born?

I do not know

 

[RestlessSoul]

Secondly, after thousands of years of people looking for god, nobody has ever found him/her/it.
How many more millennia must that search continue before concluding that there's probably no such thing?

Many people hold the absolute conviction that they have indeed found God. Don't expect photos though.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's not true across the board, and you know it.

If I ask the question "give me an example where someone's religious beliefs caused great problems" and I bet people will already have thought of 3 examples before finishing reading this sentence.