Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[Escéptico]

Evolution is smart, it's built within for us to evolve so that God does not have to continually monitor, update, and make corrections. Once again, it's SMART. Why wouldn't God do it this way?

It's not smart. The evolutionary process is a dumb, mechanical set of algorithms that rewards short-term fitness at the expense of a vast amount of suffering, death, and extinction. The current winners of this bloody, brutal tournament (contemporary species) resemble Rube Goldberg contraptions, cobbled together from obsolete designs and bearing all the hallmarks of the short-sighted process that came up with them.

If that's the way your god operates, maybe he's not as worthy of respect as you seem to think.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

When God finished the Creation, he rested on the seventh day. Evolution, actually mutation and adaptation and genetic breakdown, is still said by the evolutionist to continue today.

 

[Da Troof]

When God finished the Creation, he rested on the seventh day. Evolution, actually mutation and adaptation and genetic breakdown, is still said by the evolutionist to continue today.

Sorry I don't understand your point

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The difference here is that I consider religion to be metaphysical science and its intrinsic intangibleness ( in some of its dimensions) do not limit it to methodological naturalism for the arrival of conclusions.

Anything not limited to methodological naturalism is not science. Whatever you discover by non-naturalistic and non-methodological means is not scientific knowledge. It may be knowledge of some form, but it's not scientific.

Hi , Besides the very claim "God does not exist" implys knowledge of God ..isn't that humorous?

How so? You've brought up this idea in this thread and others, but I really don't know what you're getting at. Could you explain your position?

You could say "there are no tigers on this island" without having a knowledge of any specific tiger; all you need is just upper and lower bounds of some category into which tigers fit. If you can conclude that a whole category of things does not exist, then you automatically conclude that any member of that category does not exist either.

If you look around your desert island and decide that there are no large animals (because there's no trees or hiding places, so you'd see them) and that there are no meat-eating predators (because the only meat on the island is you, and you just arrived, so any meat-eater would have starved long ago), you can safely declare that there are no tigers, even if your only "knowledge" of tigers is that they're supposed to be large meat-eating predator animals.

By the same logic, you could also say "there are no Jabberwocks on this island"; making this declaration doesn't somehow mean that a Jabberwock exists anywhere other than as the ficticious creature in the Lewis Carrol poem.

Denial of the existence of God no more implies "knowledge of God" than denial of the existence of Jabberwocks implies "knowledge of Jabberwocks".

 

[Michel07]

Anything not limited to methodological naturalism is not science. Whatever you discover by non-naturalistic and non-methodological means is not scientific knowledge. It may be knowledge of some form, but it's not scientific.


How so? You've brought up this idea in this thread and others, but I really don't know what you're getting at. Could you explain your position?

You could say "there are no tigers on this island" without having a knowledge of any specific tiger; all you need is just upper and lower bounds of some category into which tigers fit. If you can conclude that a whole category of things does not exist, then you automatically conclude that any member of that category does not exist either.

If you look around your desert island and decide that there are no large animals (because there's no trees or hiding places, so you'd see them) and that there are no meat-eating predators (because the only meat on the island is you, and you just arrived, so any meat-eater would have starved long ago), you can safely declare that there are no tigers, even if your only "knowledge" of tigers is that they're supposed to be large meat-eating predator animals.

By the same logic, you could also say "there are no Jabberwocks on this island"; making this declaration doesn't somehow mean that a Jabberwock exists anywhere other than as the ficticious creature in the Lewis Carrol poem.

Denial of the existence of God no more implies "knowledge of God" than denial of the existence of Jabberwocks implies "knowledge of Jabberwocks".

The claim " there are no tigers on this island" is not a denial of the existence of tigers or the island .
Likewise. "there are no Jabberwocks on this island" is not a denial of Jabberwocks or the island either. I would not have been able to make this statement because I am not farmiliar with the Lewis Carrol poem.

 

[Magic Man]

The claim " there are no tigers on this island" is not a denial of the existence of tigers or the island .
Likewise. "there are no Jabberwocks on this island" is not a denial of Jabberwocks or the island either. I would not have been able to make this statement because I am not farmiliar with the Lewis Carrol poem.

So, because Lewis Carroll said there are Jabberwocks, there must be? You're saying that because I have some knowledge of a leprechaun, that leprechauns must exist. Does that actually make sense to you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The claim " there are no tigers on this island" is not a denial of the existence of tigers or the island .

So then how is it any different from the claim "there are no gods in this universe"?

Likewise. "there are no Jabberwocks on this island" is not a denial of Jabberwocks or the island either. I would not have been able to make this statement because I am not farmiliar with the Lewis Carrol poem.

That's a shame; I hope that doesn't mean you never read any of Alice in Wonderland either. Anyhow, here's the poem. It's nice and short.

Okay... you don't like me denying the existence of Jabberwocks only on one island? Make it a blanket denial, then. I am explicitly claiming that Jabberwocks do not physicially exist anywhere, have never existed, and will never exist. Does this mean that Jabberwocks do in fact exist?

If not, why does denial of the existence of God somehow imply the existence of God?

 

[Michel07]

So, because Lewis Carroll said there are Jabberwocks, there must be? You're saying that because I have some knowledge of a leprechaun, that leprechauns must exist. Does that actually make sense to you?

The Jabberwock does exist in the poem.
You can't make a claim about something without some specific knowledge about it and to say God does not exist is to claim specific knowledge of God .

 

[Magic Man]

The Jabberwock does exist in the poem.
You can't make a claim about something without some specific knowledge about it and to say God does not exist is to claim specific knowledge of God .

OK, so you're not saying the God exists in reality because we can deny it, you're just saying that God exists somewhere, even if that's just in your mind? Is that right? Because that I agree with, but there's a big difference between existing in your mind and existing in an objective reality.

 

[Michel07]

OK, so you're not saying the God exists in reality because we can deny it, you're just saying that God exists somewhere, even if that's just in your mind? Is that right? Because that I agree with, but there's a big difference between existing in your mind and existing in an objective reality.

The question is more of one regarding making an honest statement. " I don't know God " would be an honest statement which I believe is the best that atheists can actually say honestly. The rest is nonsense.

 

[Wandered Off]

The question is more of one regarding making an honest statement. " I don't know God " would be an honest statement which I believe is the best that atheists can actually say honestly. The rest is nonsense.

Atheism is a statement about belief, while agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. An atheist can honestly lack both belief and knowledge. There is no dishonesty in that.

If an atheist claimed to know that there is no God, then you might have a case, but I haven't seen that claim in this thread.

 

[Magic Man]

The question is more of one regarding making an honest statement. " I don't know God " would be an honest statement which I believe is the best that atheists can actually say honestly. The rest is nonsense.

The point, though, is that I can infer from the fact that I don't know God, and have seen no evidence to lead me to the conclusion that God exists. I can therefore conclude logically for myself that these factors mean that God doesn't exist.

Wouldn't a more honest statement for you to make be "I think I know God, but I'm not absolutely sure."?

 

[Escéptico]

If an atheist claimed to know that there is no God, then you might have a case, but I haven't seen that claim in this thread.

Even Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, stops short of characterizing his position as "I know there is no God." His belief that there is no God approaches certainty, he claims, but no one can honestly say with 100% certainty that he knows there is no God.

 

[Wandered Off]

Even Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, stops short of characterizing his position as "I know there is no God." His belief that there is no God approaches certainty, he claims, but no one can honestly say with 100% certainty that he knows there is no God.

Yep, you'd have to acquire the allegedly godlike quality of omniscience to know for sure. In that sense, we're all agnostics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Jabberwock does exist in the poem.
You can't make a claim about something without some specific knowledge about it and to say God does not exist is to claim specific knowledge of God .

Such as the specific knowledge of God one could derive from a dictionary definition of the word "god", perhaps?

 

[Willamena]

Such as the specific knowledge of God one could derive from a dictionary definition of the word "god", perhaps?

You mean "God: a deity." "Deity: see 'God'."

 

[Willamena]

The point, though, is that I can infer from the fact that I don't know God, and have seen no evidence to lead me to the conclusion that God exists. I can therefore conclude logically for myself that these factors mean that God doesn't exist.

Using the same logic, does my Aunt Rosalin exist?

The better point, I think, is that you have particular expectations of what God should be (i.e. your idea of 'God') and it is only those expectations that are not being met.

 

[Wandered Off]

The better point, I think, is that you have particular expectations of what God should be (i.e. your idea of 'God') and it is only those expectations that are not being met.

But if existence is one of your expectations....

 

[Magic Man]

Using the same logic, does my Aunt Rosalin exist?

The better point, I think, is that you have particular expectations of what God should be (i.e. your idea of 'God') and it is only those expectations that are not being met.

I don't know, does she? In that case, it's not as big a deal. If you tell me she exists, I'll take your word for it, because it doesn't really affect me. Whether or not Michel's version of God exists will affect me greatly. I will accept much less evidence in that case than in God's case.

Well, yes, of course. If I stretch the idea of God enough, I can make it fit something that I already believe is real.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean "God: a deity." "Deity: see 'God'."

Just for fun, I looked up "god". According to dictionary.com, "god" can be used as a verb. How about that - I learn something new every day.

I should also point out that I do not deny the existence of upper balconies of theatres or the spectators seated in them.