Evidence, please.
Why should we consider a designer god if we have no evidence for one? And again, why do you reject evolution?
- Credited, perhaps. But is there any evidence for this god, for this creation?
You say you can't learn what this god does... billions of years ago, or presumably, at any time at all. So, why pretend that you do know the god created the heavens and Earth, as it says in the book?
To an outsider of your faith, this quote looks like words. But where is the evidence that any of this is true? I don't see any at all.
- Please demonstrate the soundness of the logic using evidence.
- I would like to know what a believer can say he or she knows about this god.. I think it even says in your book that you can't know the mind of god. In my case, I came to the realization that all I knew about God was what it said in a book.. and what the preachers told me how to interpret the words. Words, and interpretation of words is the only evidence I ever got, and still get.
That's not enough for me. I wonder why it is for anyone else?
- That's true. The book might be true. But that has to be demonstrated with some evidence. If what the book says is unfalsifiable, then we can't really know if it's false or true.
So, why pretend that it is true?
The evidence of not all sharing the SAME "ancestry" is that we can not all (all earthly life forms) be traced to ONE single
individual ancestor from an evolutionary point of view.
There was not one single "original life form 1" from which all directly descended.
Even if all earthly life came from one single puddle of primordial soup, that puddle could have produced many similar whatevers -not just one.
That was just a technical point. All earthly life is
based on previous life forms, but that is not necessarily shared
ancestry -it is shared origin.
It all originated from an arrangement of the elements. The elements were created by the big bang, yada yada, and traveled to become arranged as life forms.
I was pointing out that life can come from "natural" things because the nature of the elements lend themselves to life.
My point was that God would not have designed physical life from elements which happened to exist, he would have designed the elements in preparation for physical life (etc.).
From there, I was trying to illustrate that a "believer"
should not reject "evolution" itself based on anything in scripture -and especially not based on what they believe scripture says which might not be the case.
It's a bit like you (no offense intended) reading what I wrote and thinking I was denying evolution -when I was doing exactly the opposite.
I was saying that I don't know whether or not God has caused many things to evolve on many worlds or not -whether it would have required that he arranged things after the big bang, or whether he might have set it in motion by the big bang, etc.... whether he set evolution in motion then made little tweaks along the way...
because I'm a newb.
You can consider what you like. Not everyone has all available evidence, and not all evidence can be shared at will.
I do not reject evolution. I just know that we don't have all of the evidence yet.
Believing that God created Adam directly 6,000 years ago (the first "man" by
biblical definition) actually has nothing to do with whether or not things evolve.
I DO know that both evolution and design exist -and essentially believe them to be inseparable.
I don't believe everything the religious conclude -and I don't believe everything scientists conclude.
Some believe that evolution designed designers without realizing it did.
I don't believe that is the whole story -or necessarily a completely accurate part of the whole story.
There is evolution -and there is design -and I am interested in what role each played at what point.
Many scientists consider many possibilities for which there is no direct evidence. Then, when it comes to considering a designer in regard to evolution, it's like they are afraid of committing blasphemy.
Designers exist. It's ok to consider them. You don't have to accept anything without proof, but you should not be afraid to consider things which are possible -and sometimes it leads to great advancements even if you don't prove the original thing.
If you only consider available evidence, you are absolutely, 100 percent, guaranteed to MISS SOMETHING -to NOT get the BIG PICTURE (ok -usually
in microcosm -but absolutely overall -because collecting all of the evidence will take a very long time).
Imagine, for example, that an alien scientist landed on earth, mixed up a puddle of primordial soup -then left.
It "could" have happened naturally -but it didn't (in this scenario). Should we consider such possibilities? We have no evidence -but what sort of evidence could there possibly be?
A muddy stick?
Doesn't make much difference, either -unless a bunch of alien scientists show up later. Maybe a few people were visited by them over the years -but the others just scoffed!
Until the invasion -then..... evidence abounds!!!!
So -what if it is all false? It could still lead to us to stir up pools of primordial soup on other planets.
There is plenty of evidence for God/creation, but the sort which would convince most is at the discretion of God. It will be made available to all eventually. Feel free to disagree.
I did not say I can't learn what God does. I essentially said that newbs could not possibly account for all of his time. Sometimes God shows people what he does.
I know God exists. I can't make you know God exists.
I will do my best to demonstrate the soundness of the logic (that available evidence does not disprove God or indicate that a designer was not necessary) using evidence in future posts.
You seem more sincere than many, so I don't mind.
Right now I will say that the POINT at which design might have been
necessary for the emergence of life on earth
may not have been AFTER the big bang.
I say that because I see the big bang as something similar to a seed which became what it would -produced what it would -by its nature -so what it would produce could have been in that nature already -
by design -and that nature
could have included every last turn of events which led to the emergence of life.
That is why I brought up God being credited with creating ALL things.
If you are interested in God -have any sort of sincere curiosity -think that he might possibly exist -ask him to make you understand the truth.
He had written that if you draw near to him, he will draw near to you. That has to do with communication, but also attitude, so I would advise doing so respectfully.
If you are not interested, why waste your time with the issue?
(According to scripture) God is not desperately trying to get people to believe in him. Showing up would fast-track that.
Besides, it didn't make much of a difference to those with direct evidence. They still didn't get the big picture.
He is far more concerned that we believe the truth.
That includes his existence, authority, etc., but he would rather see one do what is obviously right in his absence than know he exists/is in authority and do wrong.
You can't be where you aren't until you are -you can't believe what you don't until you do.
You might get lost -and you might believe the wrong thing.
Just be a good person. Keep going.