Humans are still evolving...

[FDRC2014]

So if God creates a circumstance (conditions) that bring(s) about lightning.
that's not the same as...God did it?

Oh dear.
Well, you can trace the conditions for lightning to take place to the start of the universe (i.e. there is no need for a god to create the conditions for lightning, until you trace it back to the start of the universe).
Saying god created the conditions for the start of the universe is entirely different from saying he stamps his foot in anger which makes thunder.
And regarding the start of the universe, we can just say we don't know, which brings you back in a circle to saying that the greeks didn't know.
Essentially its been a slow decline for poor old God, he is been used to explain less and less, and eventually we will be able to explain everything.

 

[CatholicCrusader]

.....What is it that gives you the ability to pick and chose what to believe metaphorically and literally......

I had better not answer that. I got in trouble already for getting into a similar question and I guess I violated the rule of the sub-forum.

 

[Copernicus]

In fact, their is not physical evidence to support the belief that there is NO God either. Theists and Atheists alike have no physical evidence to back up their claim. So I could just as easily say that Atheism quickly breaks down for lack of evidence.

You cannot actually turn the 'lack of evidence' argument back on itself. There is no physical evidence for or against Santa Claus, but that doesn't make a claim of his existence equal to a denial. Burden of proof still applies to the positive claim, because positive claims are easier to prove than negative ones. The argument isn't about possibility, but plausibility.

But how about mathematics and the law of probabilities? In this realm, probablity suggests that there must be a God. The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible...

Probability suggests nothing of the sort unless you are proposing a way to calculate it. If the concept of God is inherently self-contradictory--as some philosophers have argued (see, e.g., The Impossibility of God)--then his existence would have zero probability. Given the overwhelmingly large number of false gods that have been proposed by humans throughout history, the existence of any particular god is statistically unlikely.

Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds...

This old argument has already been thoroughly debunked. See any number of books by Richard Dawkins, all of which make some mention of the statistical argument. The one most directly relevant is probably Climbing Mount Improbable. The reason people make claims of this sort is that human beings have trouble contemplating spans of time that are monumentally greater than human lifespans. Also, they do not understand that natural selection is a non-random process.

...The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility".

Exactly. Your mistake is to think that natural selection is a random process. Mutations are random, not natural selection.

 

[Thief]

Oh dear.
Well, you can trace the conditions for lightning to take place to the start of the universe (i.e. there is no need for a god to create the conditions for lightning, until you trace it back to the start of the universe).
Saying god created the conditions for the start of the universe is entirely different from saying he stamps his foot in anger which makes thunder.
And regarding the start of the universe, we can just say we don't know, which brings you back in a circle to saying that the greeks didn't know.
Essentially its been a slow decline for poor old God, he is been used to explain less and less, and eventually we will be able to explain everything.

I've had similar conversation with my children.

At first you have to explain everything.

A few years go by and then..... they think they know everything.

And they stop asking.

Doesn't mean I don't exist any more.

 

[FDRC2014]

I had better not answer that. I got in trouble already for getting into a similar question and I guess I violated the rule of the sub-forum.

Ok, so you cant answer with a reasonable answer?

 

[CatholicCrusader]

Ok, so you cant answer with a reasonable answer?

Sure I can. I just don't know if my answer violates the forum rule. After all, you are asking me about scripture interpretation, which ain't really the topic of the thread.

 

[FDRC2014]

I've had similar conversation with my children.

At first you have to explain everything.

A few years go by and then..... they think they know everything.

And they stop asking.

Doesn't mean I don't exist any more.

This doesn't seem to answer the question.
Just say that apparently you children know everything, which is an amazing achievement i must say.

I am asking questions now!?
Just because you tell them something doesn't make it true. I don't believe what my parents say, just because they say it, but because it is backed up with reason. Unfortunately, we are evolved to believe what our parents say, without question, so this is why religion is so easily perpetuated.

 

[FDRC2014]

Sure I can. I just don't know if my answer violates the forum rule. After all, you are asking me about scripture interpretation, which ain't really the topic of the thread.

Not really. Im asking how you can chose, i have always wondered this.
How do you, say to yourself, yes, thats true, and no thats not true. And after all, many people read the bit about creationism (which is what this thread is about), and take it as true.

 

[waitasec]

opcorn:

 

[Thief]

This doesn't seem to answer the question.
Just say that apparently you children know everything, which is an amazing achievement i must say.

I am asking questions now!?
Just because you tell them something doesn't make it true. I don't believe what my parents say, just because they say it, but because it is backed up with reason. Unfortunately, we are evolved to believe what our parents say, without question, so this is why religion is so easily perpetuated.

I don't think you spotted that analogy...that's ok...let that go.

Care to restate the question?...something about still evolving?

 

[FDRC2014]

I don't think you spotted that analogy...that's ok...let that go.

Care to restate the question?...something about still evolving?

Obviously not.
I was saying that we know how and why lighting takes place, and why and how the conditions for lighting take place; and so on and so on, until you read the beginning of the universe.
And even then, the hypothesises for the beginning of the universe do not require God.

I ask you, where does the idea of God come from? Other than been told by elders, who can actually verify his existence.
I would feel so incomplete having to have faith in something, believing something because someone says.

 

[Thief]

Obviously not.
I was saying that we know how and why lighting takes place, and why and how the conditions for lighting take place; and so on and so on, until you read the beginning of the universe.
And even then, the hypothesises for the beginning of the universe do not require God.

I ask you, where does the idea of God come from? Other than been told by elders, who can actually verify his existence.
I would feel so incomplete having to have faith in something, believing something because someone says.

You won't find the report in science.
No equations...no experiments....

If you can't believe the report of elders, past or present....
you won't find your faith there either.

Then there is simple straight forward logic.

Someone had to be first.
A thought ...a feeling....sentience.

Ask then which came first..... intelligence or substance.

If substance rules...you are the sum of your chemistry, nothing more.

Spirit first...then you might have a shot at continuing....
after your last breath.

 

[PolyHedral]

Someone had to be first.

Why someone and not something? Humans aren't the most important thing in the universe by a long, long shot.

 

[FDRC2014]

You won't find the report in science.
No equations...no experiments....

If you can't believe the report of elders, past or present....
you won't find your faith there either.

Then there is simple straight forward logic.

Someone had to be first.
A thought ...a feeling....sentience.

Ask then which came first..... intelligence or substance.

If substance rules...you are the sum of your chemistry, nothing more.

Spirit first...then you might have a shot at continuing....
after your last breath.

By definition substance must come first, because to have intelligence we must have substance.
We are nothing more than complexly firing action potentials, which is just the movement of charged particles.
We know this so much so, that chemistry can change the way a person is, the way they act, how they perceive things, when they feel good and bad, funny and serious. Chemistry (i.e. pharmacology) can manipulate this by knowing how the physiology of the brain works.
So i can only say that substance came before our intelligence.

In the beginning, there is no need for intelligence. But besides that, it is difficult to define intelligence, are we intelligent? is a monkey intelligent? is a rat intelligent? is an fly intelligent? is an amoeba intelligent? is a cyanobacteria intelligent? is a virus intelligent? is DNA intelligent? is water intelligent?
If you say we are the only intelligence, then how is it that monkeys can perform problem solving? I would call a monkey intelligent, what about a cave man?

And i will be the sum of my chemistry, because if i was anything else it would break the laws of physics and Science, and i could not exist.

 

[Thief]

By definition substance must come first, because to have intelligence we must have substance.
We are nothing more than complexly firing action potentials, which is just the movement of charged particles.
We know this so much so, that chemistry can change the way a person is, the way they act, how they perceive things, when they feel good and bad, funny and serious. Chemistry (i.e. pharmacology) can manipulate this by knowing how the physiology of the brain works.
So i can only say that substance came before our intelligence.

In the beginning, there is no need for intelligence. But besides that, it is difficult to define intelligence, are we intelligent? is a monkey intelligent? is a rat intelligent? is an fly intelligent? is an amoeba intelligent? is a cyanobacteria intelligent? is a virus intelligent? is DNA intelligent? is water intelligent?
If you say we are the only intelligence, then how is it that monkeys can perform problem solving? I would call a monkey intelligent, what about a cave man?

And i will be the sum of my chemistry, because if i was anything else it would break the laws of physics and Science, and i could not exist.

At this point, I would offer what I suspect.

Intelligence is influenced by chemistry...but is not the source...or the end.

Chemistry can be complex....energetic...
but that's not the same as intelligent.

Any species you choose can demonstrate something we cannot do.
Their chemistry is different.
We are not top of the line physically.
But we are top if the line by means of intelligence.

That our intelligence will fail to keep us interactive with this existence,
does not prove we fail altogether.

That choice belongs to 'Something' else.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well...if you insist that God is an 'idea'....

Are you then stripping the 'intellect and heart' from that 'idea' as well?

Beyond the "idea" that a god exist there is nothing else.

And of course the 'evidence problem' won't go away.
No points for a call of evidence.

But evidence does help....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In fact, their is not physical evidence to support the belief that there is NO God either. Theists and Atheists alike have no physical evidence to back up their claim. So I could just as easily say that Atheism quickly breaks down for lack of evidence.

Then I would say you don't know what an Atheist is. I lack belief in gods. It's as simple as that. Now beyond that standard declaration I can posit that gods are the creation of man's imagination. That's what I don't have evidence of but my observations of the multitude of religions on the planet lead to that conclusion.

Your way of life leads you to believe that your lord/God Yeshua (Jesus) is the way. The one true way of life and salvation and yet within the sect of "monotheism" Muslims and Jews have a different spin. Outside of the Abrahamic faiths you deny gods of other religions. In a sense you and I are more alike in our ("atheism") than we are different.

But how about mathematics and the law of probabilities? In this realm, probablity suggests that there must be a God.

Evidence please...

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible.

Evidence please...

Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible.

This is an incorrect understanding of the ToE.

Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

And they have been refuted by recent genomic research by multiple independent laboratories around the world.

 

[tumbleweed41]

When you have no physical evidence for either claim, you must move into other areas. It happens in courtrooms all the time.

Interesting that you should bring up "courtrooms".

In courtrooms around the country, biological evolution has been shown to be supported by the evidence, while creationism has been shown to be entirely faith based.

Still want to stick with that courtroom analogy?

 

[Thief]

Beyond the "idea" that a god exist there is nothing else.
But evidence does help....

Not for you.

You know the drill.
No photos...no fingerprints....no equations...no experiments...
No proof.

You just have to think about it.

 

[outhouse]

You just have to think about it.

I could think about flying monkeys delivering presents on xmas, doesnt make it so