If you believe in God AND evolution, why do you believe in God?

[YoursTrue]

d that she doesn't BELIEVE in evolution but accepts it as fact, or true, I suppose.

Believing because I believe does not mean that there aren't reasons for belief in God. If atheism is the most irrational worldview that implies that theism is more rational than atheism. It is just that my faith does not require me to justify it.

Yet you say that atheism is irrational but offer no reason as to why you say it is irrational. It seems you do not want to offer reasons WHY you believe in God, even if you have reason. And I suppose atheists have their reasons as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

Believing because I believe does not mean that there aren't reasons for belief in God. If atheism is the most irrational worldview that implies that theism is more rational than atheism. It is just that my faith does not require me to justify it.

Your faith does not require you to justify or using another term, substantiate your belief?

 

[Brian2]

well yes, going back to reasons for belief in the theory of evolution science offers reasons. And as you seem to imply, belief in God without reason justifies belief in God, is that right? No backup needed. No reason. Just belief is the reason for some. Like you say, you believe because you believe because you believe. Right?

When it comes to reasoning with atheists about God, that usually has the problem that many atheists want the sort of evidence that science can use in it's study of the material universe, even when the Bible God is not a material being, but is spirit. There will always be frustration involved in that discussion, esp when the atheist demands the sort of evidence they say is needed for their belief, and when they also go on to proselytise and say that that sort of evidence is the only sort that should be meaningful when it comes to anybody's beliefs.
This of course is a belief that they have which has no empirical evidence to support it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is it just the theory of evolution or is acceptance of other theories in science relevant to belief in God?

Many people have (belong to) a religion. And offer reasons for belief (or acceptance of the theory) in evolution. Yet reasons for belief or acceptance of belief in God is withheld by many.

 

[YoursTrue]

When it comes to reasoning with atheists about God, that usually has the problem that many atheists want the sort of evidence that science can use in it's study of the material universe, even when the Bible God is not a material being, but is spirit. There will always be frustration involved in that discussion, esp when the atheist demands the sort of evidence they say is needed for their belief, and when they also go on to proselytise and say that that sort of evidence is the only sort that should be meaningful when it comes to anybody's beliefs.
This of course is a belief that they have which has no empirical evidence to support it.

Based on your comment above, it suggests you have tried reasoning with atheists as to their lack of belief or faith in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I hate to ask this, but I will. What's the difference in accepting evolution as opposed to believing in the theory or idea. I'm not questioning your belief in God right now, I have no desire to at this point anyway. But I am wondering what you feel the difference is in reference to accepting the theory of evolution as opposed to believing in it. It's almost like saying you accept a vaccine but don't believe in it.

I do not really care about evolution vs. creationism, that is not a battle I fight. I believe what the Baha'i Faith says about evolution, so I accept it.

 

[Brian2]

Your faith does not require you to justify or using another term, substantiate your belief?

"Substantiate" might be a better term as it seems to imply empirical evidence. I don't need to have the empirical evidence and don't need to "substantiate" God to anyone in order to "justify" my faith in God.

 

[Brian2]

I think that is the problem. That both theists and atheists accept the science confounds literalist interpreters of the Bible that reject the theory for reasons of belief. If atheists accept the theory that literalist interpreters view as against God, then Christians that accept the theory, must also really be against God and not believe in God either. Thus, the position becomes another argument from ignorance in my view. Otherwise, there is no point to reference acceptance of the theory of evolution as near as I can determine.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

 

[Coder]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

Hi, what he is saying is that some Bible literalists consider Bible non-literalists as invalid Christians and/or invalid believers in God.
The reason for this is because atheists are also Bible non-literalists and some Bible literalists don't discern the difference between Bible non-literalists who believe in God and Bible non-literalists who are atheists.

When in fact Bible literalism is scientifically illogical.

 

[Brian2]

d that she doesn't BELIEVE in evolution but accepts it as fact, or true, I suppose.

Yet you say that atheism is irrational but offer no reason as to why you say it is irrational. It seems you do not want to offer reasons WHY you believe in God, even if you have reason. And I suppose atheists have their reasons as well.

I suppose it is irrational to say there is no creator for all of this,,,,,,,,,,, that all of this came about by time and chance given laws of nature which also came about by chance.
It is a subjective position to take and many arguments for God seem to be of that kind, subjective and some might even call them truisms,,,,,,, while others reject that completely and demand empirical evidence. But this demand is no more than bluster and mocking even in the face of the fact that they have no empirical evidence for their position.
They assume their position, what they call "lack of belief" is the one that everyone should have with all things until things are proven or until atleast the evidence points in that direction.
They say things like "life began all by itself because that is where the scientific evidence points". They ignore the fact that it points in that direction only because they have assumed that God has had nothing to do with it and that materialism is the correct worldview.
They say that they do not assume that, but that science has shown that a God is not needed for anything.
They ignore the fact that science works with what is called the "naturalistic methodology" presumption and does not bring in the possibility of a God or the supernatural unless that is shown to be a possibility by science.
They turn the "naturalistic methodology" into more than a methodology because they themselves require empirical (materialist) evidence for a spirit God and so think that science has shown that God does not exist because science cannot find evidence in the material world for spirits.
Sorry, I'm rambling but I hope I am making some sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just to set matters straight, I do not deny modern biology. I deny the truth of the presently taught process of evolution.

Denying evolution, is denying modern biology.
Evolution is like the "unified field theory" of the biological sciences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Many people have (belong to) a religion.

That is correct. Many people do.

And I often find it is the practices of that religion or denomination of a religion that forms the basis used for some of those people to decide they have the authority to judge the faith of others.

And offer reasons for belief (or acceptance of the theory) in evolution.

Is that something that you find unexpected in a discussion of evolution? Do you suppose that in a discussion about science that providing the basis for a conclusion should be withheld when it is principle of science to provide it?

It doesn't seem reasonable to offer that as a criticism when it is a key element of such discussions.

Yet reasons for belief or acceptance of belief in God is withheld by many.

I'm not sure that is true or that demanding that others provide reasons is justified. What purpose do you believe forms the basis for demanding an explanation of another's belief in a discussion about science? You keep saying that evolution isn't relevant to your question, yet it sits at the heart of the OP and you keep circling back to it as if it is key to your position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

I think that it is acceptance of science that is used as the reason to judge whether a person is Christian or not. That a Christian that doesn't behave in a way that some groups dictate is the basis for casting doubt. I think the point of this thread is that you cannot believe in some science and believe in God. I consider that to be ridiculous and out of touch.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just to set matters straight, I do not deny modern biology. I deny the truth of the presently taught process of evolution.

Then you deny modern biology.
Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, which doesn't make sense without it

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not asking about what you evidently perceive as a contradiction. See, I'm not asking that. So let me say it again -- what reasons does a person have if they believe in God? specifically directed to people like you who believe in God AND evolution. I'm not asking what reason you may have to believe the theory of evolution. Understand better now? Just to make sure, since you believe in God AND evolution, I'm not asking why you believe in evolution. Got it? I'm asking why you believe in GOD. Is that better now?

Do you not think that a god could have designed evolution? Why not?

 

[Spice]

"Too little science leads away from God, while too much science leads back to Him". So said Louis Pasteur.

Give that a good pondering, along with:

"Without change there would be no butterflies." Maya Angelou

Even religious belief, faith, needs to progress with enlightenment. "Seek and you will find." Jesus

Jesus also said that he spoke in parables because people "see they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand". Humankind has advanced in 2,000 years, but only by a blink of an eye in the whole. That's why, IMO, we were told the importance of faith, even the size of a mustard seed, and to follow him. . .keep seeking.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that it is acceptance of science that is used as the reason to judge whether a person is Christian or not. That a Christian that doesn't behave in a way that some groups dictate is the basis for casting doubt. I think the point of this thread is that you cannot believe in some science and believe in God. I consider that to be ridiculous and out of touch.

That is not the point of the question posed at the beginning. It's not asking why a person believes in evolution if he also believes in God. So allow me to reiterate -- the point is if a person believes in evolution and God, why does such a person believe in God? It's not asking some to delineate why a person believes in evolution ... but rather why a person who believes in God and evolution believes in God. So far it seems for some no reason for belief in God is necessary...therefore none is given.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not asking some to delineate why a person believes in evolution ... but rather why a person who believes in God and evolution believes in God. So far it seems for some no reason for belief in God is necessary...therefore none is given.

Belief in God is necessary since God was necessary to set the process of evolution into motion.

 

[Spice]

Belief in God is necessary since God was necessary to set the process of evolution into motion.

YES! The Unknowable, Incomprehensible Intelligent Designer, a.k.a. God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Belief in God is necessary since God was necessary to set the process of evolution into motion.

hmmm I am pretty sure not everyone here would agree with that. Maybe a thread put up to see how people (if they're brave enough) would answer to that. Thanks.