Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/09/15/440501945/a-question-for-you-about-evolution-god-and-death

Changing ideas...? Maybe.

Question For You About Evolution, God And Death​

Blatant emotional plea.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So evolution has a mind?

How you understood that from what was written, is a mystery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Obviously evolution doesn't care about religion and according to the theory it is mindless.

Off course it is "mindless".

Evolution is not an entity. It's a word used to describe the accumulation of genetic change over time.

It's not even valid to call it "mindless".

It's like calling erosion "mindless".
It makes no sense.

The word doesn't apply. Like saying that "the color purple is tasteless".

It makes no sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once again, the theory is that the life changes via evolution are mindless. That's it.

Ok.

So you are just stating a tautology? You have no actual point to make?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans have a different perspective about death from turtles, gorillas, ants and the like. We know we face death.

So? Does that have any impact on what death is?

We also have a different perspective on what matter is. But a rock is still a rock.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I agree wtih the professor...evolutionary science completely ignores why an all powerful creator would simply place the mechanisms in place and then let nature take its course...and when, **** hits the fan and all hell breaks loose, he suddenly decides to step in and physcially do something about it? Why didnt God simply provide, in his infinite wisdom, an automatic mechanism for mankind to self actualise out of the dung pile we got ourselves into?

If one was to actually bother to read the text one would actually ask the question, what reason is given in the bible for Christ dying on the cross? Was it not for the atonement for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)?

Oxford languages - "the action of making amends for a wrong or injury (in religious contexts) reparation or expiation for sin."

If one is going to attempt to make the claim Adam and Eve's warning of death in the Garden of Eden was only of a Spiritual nature, why then the physical demonstration of the sanctuary services, and why then a physical life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah?

I love this statement below by the professor...

"It is indeed a grand conception which regards the Deity as conducting the work of his creation by means of those all pervading influences which we call the forces of nature; but it leaves us profoundly at a loss to explain the wisdom or the benevolence which brings every day into life such myriads of sentient and intelligent beings, only that they may perish on the morrow of their birth. But this is not all. If these doctrines are true, all talk of creation or methods of creation become absurdity; for just that certainly as they are true, God himself is impossible"

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree wtih the professor...evolutionary science completely ignores why an all powerful creator would simply place the mechanisms in place and then let nature take its course...and when, **** hits the fan and all hell breaks loose, he suddenly decides to step in and physcially do something about it? Why didnt God simply provide, in his infinite wisdom, an automatic mechanism for mankind to self actualise out of the dung pile we got ourselves into?

If one was to actually bother to read the text one would actually ask the question, what reason is given in the bible for Christ dying on the cross? Was it not for the atonement for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)?

Oxford languages - "the action of making amends for a wrong or injury (in religious contexts) reparation or expiation for sin."

If one is going to attempt to make the claim Adam and Eve's warning of death in the Garden of Eden was only of a Spiritual nature, why then the physical demonstration of the sanctuary services, and why then a physical life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah?

I love this statement below by the professor...

"It is indeed a grand conception which regards the Deity as conducting the work of his creation by means of those all pervading influences which we call the forces of nature; but it leaves us profoundly at a loss to explain the wisdom or the benevolence which brings every day into life such myriads of sentient and intelligent beings, only that they may perish on the morrow of their birth. But this is not all. If these doctrines are true, all talk of creation or methods of creation become absurdity; for just that certainly as they are true, God himself is impossible"

I would say that the Gods of ancient tribal religions are illogical and indeed impossible if God is the omnipotent, all knowing all-powerful Creator 'Source' some call Gods than these ancient views of God are only the fallible human perspective of God.

IF God exists God is unknowable from the human perspective to the degree claimed by the many dvrse conflicting religions and sects/ The attributes of God would be reflected in the natural evolving nature of our existence.

 

[gnostic]

I agree wtih the professor...evolutionary science completely ignores why an all powerful creator would simply place the mechanisms in place and then let nature take its course...and when, **** hits the fan and all hell breaks loose, he suddenly decides to step in and physcially do something about it? Why didnt God simply provide, in his infinite wisdom, an automatic mechanism for mankind to self actualise out of the dung pile we got ourselves into?

Just evolutionary biology?

No physics theories , no chemistry theories, no astronomy theories, etc, would try to explain anything about god’s or religions, because nothing about God is testable.

All Natural Sciences required all scientific theories to be testable and tested, and the only ways to test any particular theory, is through observations of the physical & empirical evidence or repeatable experiments.

You cannot test God. You cannot observe God. You cannot measure God, etc, which would mean the very concept of God, is unfalsifiable and untestable, because there are no physical evidence of any god.

The only way for anyone to validate the existence of God, is through personal faith in personal belief, and such acceptance of belief, is based only on biases. Faith is flimsy, you might just as well as believe in pixies, as you would for God.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree wtih the professor...evolutionary science completely ignores why an all powerful creator would simply place the mechanisms in place and then let nature take its course...and when, **** hits the fan and all hell breaks loose, he suddenly decides to step in and physcially do something about it? Why didnt God simply provide, in his infinite wisdom, an automatic mechanism for mankind to self actualise out of the dung pile we got ourselves into?

If one was to actually bother to read the text one would actually ask the question, what reason is given in the bible for Christ dying on the cross? Was it not for the atonement for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23)?

Oxford languages - "the action of making amends for a wrong or injury (in religious contexts) reparation or expiation for sin."

If one is going to attempt to make the claim Adam and Eve's warning of death in the Garden of Eden was only of a Spiritual nature, why then the physical demonstration of the sanctuary services, and why then a physical life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah?

I love this statement below by the professor...

"It is indeed a grand conception which regards the Deity as conducting the work of his creation by means of those all pervading influences which we call the forces of nature; but it leaves us profoundly at a loss to explain the wisdom or the benevolence which brings every day into life such myriads of sentient and intelligent beings, only that they may perish on the morrow of their birth. But this is not all. If these doctrines are true, all talk of creation or methods of creation become absurdity; for just that certainly as they are true, God himself is impossible"

I find that last paragraph, the statement by the professor, hard to understand. The more I think about it, the greater God becomes and I realize He made us, He made life. We did not create God or life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot test God. You cannot observe God. You cannot measure God, etc, which would mean the very concept of God, is unfalsifiable and untestable, because there are no physical evidence of any god.

I have to disagree with this a bit. One can test specific versions of "God". One cannot falsify a general God but if one is specific enough that does lend that particular version of God to be tested. So one is not actually testing God, one is testing one's belief about what God is. For example there has been a recent outbreak of Flat Earthers. Many of them base that belief upon a very literal interpretation of the Bible. Demonstrating that the Earth is a sphere tests and refutes that "God". Now I do not think that I have "refuted God" in any way by doing so, but when you are against them or YEC's or others will rather wild beliefs they will often try to claim "You are trying to refute God".

 

[YoursTrue]

Eh... Admitting that he puts what he wants over reason is the exact opposite of rational. I don't think there's anything admirable about that, and honestly, it kind of puts me off. That's the exact opposite of intellectual honesty. It's actively trying to live with blinders on



That's not what I read. What happens in the article is that he chooses to ignore his beliefs in evolution in favor of what he wants - even though he finds the theory convincing. That's fine, but to do so requires serious mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance. I wouldn't be able to live a happy life like that, personally



And every other holy book out there

Why would anyone hope that their ego persists forever? Like I said before, this attachment to our own egos doesn't feel healthy to me. It feels like a kind of escapism



So the real world evidence that eternal life that exists outside of reality is the fact that life exists at all? Death exists as well, and we can actually see that that one IS eternal and it also actually exists in reality, unlike claims of eternal lives in paradise

The evidence for eternal, spiritual life in paradise seems weak to me

To believe there is something greater in store for mankind than this life is not irrational. Whether you believe it or not, that has been the situation since mankind's beginning. Some do, some don't. (Have a good one.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Just evolutionary biology?

No physics theories , no chemistry theories, no astronomy theories, etc, would try to explain anything about god’s or religions, because nothing about God is testable.

All Natural Sciences required all scientific theories to be testable and tested, and the only ways to test any particular theory, is through observations of the physical & empirical evidence or repeatable experiments.

You cannot test God. You cannot observe God. You cannot measure God, etc, which would mean the very concept of God, is unfalsifiable and untestable, because there are no physical evidence of any god.

The only way for anyone to validate the existence of God, is through personal faith in personal belief, and such acceptance of belief, is based only on biases. Faith is flimsy, you might just as well as believe in pixies, as you would for God.

Question (I'm not demanding an answer ) -- when is the last time you prayed, and specifically to ask if He's there does He hear you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To believe there is something greater in store for mankind than this life is not irrational. Whether you believe it or not, that has been the situation since mankind's beginning. Some do, some don't. (Have a good one.)

No one has said that you have to become an atheist to accept evolution. You only need to stop claiming that your God is a liar.

 

[ppp]

To believe there is something greater in store for mankind than this life is not irrational. Whether you believe it or not, that has been the situation since mankind's beginning. Some do, some don't. (Have a good one.)

You don't know what humans have believed since our earliest days. But even if both we and our immediate ancestors believed a thing, that is not evidence that the thing is rational. The length of time believing a thing is not an indicator of rationality.

 

[gnostic]

The more I think about it, the greater God becomes and I realize He made us, He made life.

That’s based on personal belief, and belief in superstitions, eg God did it.

The “God did it” is no more credible than saying Ra did it, or Enki did it, Odin did it, Brahma did it, or some great spirits did it, fairies did it, etc.

And since you are the claimant of this claim - “…and I realize He made us, He made life.” - then the burden of supporting your claim falls upon you; you are the one who needs to show evidence: the evidence that God exist in the first place, follow by, showing evidence that God “doing“ the creating of life.

We did not create God or life.

To the later, as “we” create life, we have been doing for more two million years, through procreation, hence sexual intercourse and childbirth, since the earlier species of the genus Homo, eg Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc, the species prior to the Homo sapiens.

Where do you think babies come from, YoursTrue? If not from 2 haploid gamete cells (eg sperm and ovum or egg) from two sexual partners, then where?

From storks carrying babies?

As to “we did not create God”. That’s also not true.

Humans have been creating gods, spirits and religions since the Neolithic period, if not earlier in the Upper Palaeolithic period.

By the mid 3rd millennium BCE, when the Egyptians and Sumerian & Akkadians have mastered their writing systems, they began recording hymns and stories, 2000 years before Jews began writing their own stories in Genesis and Exodus, eg Babylonian Exile.

based on the absence of evidence, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses appeared to be fictional or mythological characters invented in the 6th century BCE.

 

[YoursTrue]

That’s based on personal belief, and belief in superstitions, eg God did it.

The “God did it” is no more credible than saying Ra did it, or Enki did it, Odin did it, Brahma did it, or some great spirits did it, fairies did it, etc.

And since you are the claimant of this claim - “…and I realize He made us, He made life.” - then the burden of supporting your claim falls upon you; you are the one who needs to show evidence: the evidence that God exist in the first place, follow by, showing evidence that God “doing“ the creating of life.



To the later, as “we” create life, we have been doing for more two million years, through procreation, hence sexual intercourse and childbirth, since the earlier species of the genus Homo, eg Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc, the species prior to the Homo sapiens.

Where do you think babies come from, YoursTrue? If not from 2 haploid gamete cells (eg sperm and ovum or egg) from two sexual partners, then where?

From storks carrying babies?

As to “we did not create God”. That’s also not true.

Humans have been creating gods, spirits and religions since the Neolithic period, if not earlier in the Upper Palaeolithic period.

By the mid 3rd millennium BCE, when the Egyptians and Sumerian & Akkadians have mastered their writing systems, they began recording hymns and stories, 2000 years before Jews began writing their own stories in Genesis and Exodus, eg Babylonian Exile.

based on the absence of evidence, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses appeared to be fictional or mythological characters invented in the 6th century BCE.

That's how you think. I believe otherwise. There are those here who claim to go to church but say as you do, i.e., that the Bible is filled with myths, that Moses did not exist as written, David never happened as written, they claim God's name should be hidden, etc. We all make choices. Yes, Jesus said he is the truth. I believe Jesus and the Bible, not those who twist what the Bible says.
Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6.
I believe that. We all make choices in life.

 

[gnostic]

That's how you think. I believe otherwise.

As I said, you are basing this on what you personally believe in:

That’s based on personal belief, and belief in superstitions, eg God did it.​

You believe in the stories of the Bible and the people within those stories, particularly that from Genesis to Joshua, and you have accepted them as true.

This “acceptance” or “trust” in your beliefs, are what we called FAITH.

FAITH in “belief” or FAITH in personal “view” or “opinion”, are highly subjective, and often leads anyone to being biased.

No matter what belief you may accept to be true, FAITH don’t equate as EVIDENCE.

For verification of events or people of being historical, you needs something written contemporary or “near contemporary“ to the dated events.

There are Egyptian records to the 18th dynasty, but nothing indicated that Moses was born during the reign of Ahmose I (c 1550 - 1525 BCE), nor are there any records of either Ahmose 2 daughters (Meritamun & Sitamun) adopting Hebrew baby or him being raised in royal family. The Exodus 2 cannot even name the king or the princess, which only demonstrated that author knew nothing about them.

if Moses was true author of Exodus, and if he was really adopted by royal princess, then why couldn’t Moses put a name to the king and to the king’s daughter?

And if Moses was also author to Genesis, why couldn’t name the kings that both (respectively) met with Abraham and with Joseph? Joseph was decreed as second only to the king, but the author gave no name as to who this king was. Such omissions revealed that whoever wrote Genesis, knew absolutely nothing about history of Egypt during that time…which means the author wasn’t contemporary to any events in Egyptian history.

that showed me how unreliable both Genesis & Exodus really are.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I said, you are basing this on what you personally believe in:



You believe in the stories of the Bible and the people within those stories, particularly that from Genesis to Joshua, and you have accepted them as true.

That is true. I have come to believe and accept using reason as much as provided (meaning the historicity of the accounts including the transmission of the history).

This “acceptance” or “trust” in your beliefs, are what we called FAITH.

That is basically true. I have come to accept, after a study as much as possible, to agree that what the Bible says is true.

FAITH in “belief” or FAITH in personal “view” or “opinion”, are highly subjective, and often leads anyone to being biased.

No matter what belief you may accept to be true, FAITH don’t equate as EVIDENCE.

That may be so, however, if one clings to a moral standing, let's say, risking one's life against powerful opposition, knowing that the enemy is dangerous, he is basing a belief on the conviction that the belief is strong.

For verification of events or people of being historical, you needs something written contemporary or “near contemporary“ to the dated events.

There are Egyptian records to the 18th dynasty, but nothing indicated that Moses was born during the reign of Ahmose I (c 1550 - 1525 BCE), nor are there any records of either Ahmose 2 daughters (Meritamun & Sitamun) adopting Hebrew baby or him being raised in royal family. The Exodus 2 cannot even name the king or the princess, which only demonstrated that author knew nothing about them.

if Moses was true author of Exodus, and if he was really adopted by royal princess, then why couldn’t Moses put a name to the king and to the king’s daughter?

And if Moses was also author to Genesis, why couldn’t name the kings that both (respectively) met with Abraham and with Joseph? Joseph was decreed as second only to the king, but the author gave no name as to who this king was. Such omissions revealed that whoever wrote Genesis, knew absolutely nothing about history of Egypt during that time…which means the author wasn’t contemporary to any events in Egyptian history.

that showed me how unreliable both Genesis & Exodus really are.

I am not an expert on those topics such as why Moses did not write the name of the Pharaoh (the king) and his daughter, but I have a feeling (idea?) that there was a reason. And the reason is not that the accounts are mythical. What it was I don't know. So the question can be asked, why wouldn't he have written the names of those persons? Obviously I don't know the answer. Going over your assertion about Moses not naming those who met with Abraham and Joseph, Moses really didn't write very much about that in historical detail with names, who knows? Could it be God's spirit that moved Moses to leave those names out? The accounts importantly describes the God who continued revealing himself after that to Moses and then the nation of Israel. Further, upon re-reading your points above about the lack of names, it would seem logical (to me) that there is a reason Moses did not. And since the Bible says that all scripture is inspired of God then again, I would have to logically (yes, by faith) conclude that it was God's spirit, or active force, that moved Moses to leave the names out.

 

[gnostic]

I am not an expert on those topics such as why Moses did not write the name of the Pharaoh (the king) and his daughter, but I have a feeling (idea?) that there was a reason. And the reason is not that the accounts are mythical.

You are still ignoring the fact that moses didn’t write the Genesis, Exodus & other books. There are no evidence that any of these books existing in the 15th century BCE, which is early 18th dynasty. You will only find appearances of these texts from 6th century BCE or later.

But there are contemporary texts to Egyptian kings, such as Ahmose I & Thutmose III, such as stone stelae. None of them mentioned Moses or the Israelites being slaves in Egypt.

And Exodus 1 & 2 saying a king was built Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) during the 18th dynasty (15th century BCE), but the reality it is didn’t exist until the 19th dynasty (13th century BCE), is another indicator that the author of Exodus don’t know the real history of Egypt during that time.

That’s how anyone with common sense know that Moses didn’t exist in the 18th dynasty. Nothing Exodus says match up with the actual timeline in Egypt.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are still ignoring the fact that moses didn’t write the Genesis, Exodus & other books. There are no evidence that any of these books existing in the 15th century BCE, which is early 18th dynasty. You will only find appearances of these texts from 6th century BCE or later.

But there are contemporary texts to Egyptian kings, such as Ahmose I & Thutmose III, such as stone stelae. None of them mentioned Moses or the Israelites being slaves in Egypt.

And Exodus 1 & 2 saying a king was built Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) during the 18th dynasty (15th century BCE), but the reality it is didn’t exist until the 19th dynasty (13th century BCE), is another indicator that the author of Exodus don’t know the real history of Egypt during that time.

That’s how anyone with common sense know that Moses didn’t exist in the 18th dynasty. Nothing Exodus says match up with the actual timeline in Egypt.

I am not ignoring the fact that these writings were written down on scrolls, or papyrus, were valued and preserved for generations, you don't know everything about them and neither do I, but I do believe what the writings say. In order for me to understand what you're saying there you'd have to have a better explanation that what you have now. That's just your word so far and you don't quote from the Bible itself. So first give the scriptures in question if you will, and then point out your differences. Thanks.