• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just Accidental?

Status
Not open for further replies.

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There are those who choose "theistic evolution" because it fuses the two opposing belief systems
Science is not a "belief system".

but this is not supporting what the Bible says
But that's your interpretation and not "what the Bible says". Much like we see the use of symbolism in books like the Psalms and Revelation, which I would assume you accept as such, then what's the problem with viewing the creation accounts as also using symbolism, as in this case being allegorical? Based on what we now know, there is not one reason why one has to take these accounts literally, and you have already indicated that you actually don't by using the word "yom" out of its literal meaning. In Hebrew, there are different words for era and epoch, and if the author wanted to convey that this is what he meant, then I'm quite sure he would have used them. He could have done as such without changing the teachings, but he chose not to.

I personally find the macro-evolutionary scenario to be untenable.
There is not magic division between "micro-" and "macro-", and if you think there is, then please put forth your evidence from scientific analysis. But you won't because you can't. You made the claim, so now please provide the scientific evidence.

I believe that you are mistaken in your evaluation of this word.
Oh, I see, so us Jews really don't understand Hebrew enough to know what "yom" means and how it's used.

Well, since you have accused me of putting words in your mouth, I will have to say the same to you.
I notice that you can't even apologize for "bearing false witness" as you have done by saying I'm an "atheist" when I've made it abundantly clear that this is not a correct label of where I'm coming from.

On top of that, you are disingenuous when you said "Never have I said we can scientifically prove God's existence to anyone" as I never said that you had said you could. Quite the reverse as I said that you couldn't provide such evidence. Is there a discount on "bearing false witness" this week whereas you can get two for the price of one?

I admire your qualities as a person metis, even if I disagree with your reasoning.
Thanks, and I can accept that.

I wish you peace.
Same here, and I truly wish only the best for you & yours. I'll admit I chafe at the bit at times with you, but I never hold it personally against you-- probably because at my age I forget a lot. :(

shalom
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, and the thing is that my mind is not so much in this world most of the time, so when I actually have time out of being busy, I forget what I thought I might do as in look up "Spinoza's God".
Let me highly recommend this book: "A Book Forged In Hell" by Steven Nadler. It's much less a biography on Spinoza and more focuses in on his approach to God and how he came to his conclusions.

Whether you end up agreeing with him or not, he's very thought-provoking, to say the least. To impress a guy like Einstein, as he did, has to be viewed as being monumental in and of itself as Einstein actually was very well versed in theology. It's a side of him that a lot of people are not aware of.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
But if we use that paradigm, then energy must also have originated from something. From what did energy come?

You're welcome.
That's where "infinity" may come in, and we do know it's a possibility because it is used in many math equations.

We are so used to hearing and saying things like "X started here" that we forget that X actually was in itself caused. So, our brain tends to be patterned into believing there must be an "Immovable Mover", to use one of Aquinas' names for God, whereas having an uncaused cause is actually a concept that is totally out of the ordinary, so there's really no logical reason to believe that it's out of the running.

So, is infinity "the answer"? Again, "I don't know".
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's where "infinity" may come in, and we do know it's a possibility because it is used in many math equations.

We are so used to hearing and saying things like "X started here" that we forget that X actually was in itself caused. So, our brain tends to be patterned into believing there must be an "Immovable Mover", to use one of Aquinas' names for God, whereas having an uncaused cause is actually a concept that is totally out of the ordinary, so there's really no logical reason to believe that it's out of the running.

So, is infinity "the answer"? Again, "I don't know".
I agree that anything with a start had a cause.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I agree that anything with a start had a cause.
BTW, in Buddhist dharma (teachings), there's a name for this, and it's often referred to as "dependence rising". IOW, not only are there causes for everything, but also that nothing is "stand alone", at least by all indications.

So, to me, I picture it as like being a gigantic spiderweb that goes on and on and on... whereas everything is ultimately interconnected.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
IOW, not only are there causes for everything, but also that nothing is "stand alone", at least by all indications.
I do not agree with that thought. If you take it to your heart that there is a cause for everything, then (imo) you will never see God because God has no cause.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If you take it to your heart that there is a cause for everything, then (imo) you will never see God because God has no cause.
But how could anyone possibly know that? Were you there at "creation"? I'm old-- er I mean mature-- but I wasn't there.

So, why should we assume that there's a "God"? Is it possible there may be "Gods"? Do Gods live and die like we do? If one thinks not, why not? These, to me at least, are legitimate questions, and it's based on the fact that there really isn't objective evidence one way or the other on questions like these.

So, for me, I just admit that "I don't know", so I've studied and learned from the scriptures and other sources, and then apply that which seems to be helpful.

That's the best I can do, and I'm quite rest-assured that you are doing much the same.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How does anything truly novel ever come into being? We know that creative intelligence can achieve this, but spontaneously... creation without creativity is a little more tricky!
God is truly novel imo and has never "come into being". To come, a thing must be somewhere else. If there is a somewhere else, there is a somewhere else for that place too and so on and so on........
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But how could anyone possibly know that?
Faith and faith not everyone has.

Were you there at "creation"?
I am different. Does my difference mean that I am one of these? Ephesians 1:4. If I am, then yes, I was there.

I'm old-- er I mean mature-- but I wasn't there.
That is ok with me. :D

So, why should we assume that there's a "God"?
We? I think assuming is not a good thing to do, so you are doing just fine, so far imo.

Is it possible there may be "Gods"?
There are gods. They are not all nice people.

Do Gods live and die like we do?
No!

If one thinks not, why not?
They are in the air. Haha

These, to me at least, are legitimate questions, and it's based on the fact that there really isn't objective evidence one way or the other on questions like these.
Right! Spirits are not objects.

So, for me, I just admit that "I don't know", so I've studied and learned from the scriptures and other sources, and then apply that which seems to be helpful.
I really do think you are doing fine. You are kind and kindness is from God.

That's the best I can do, and I'm quite rest-assured that you are doing much the same.
I am not as studious as I might be, but, thank you!

I have not forgotten about the book I order per the suggestion of @Jayhawker Soule and it might be one of the first study books I will get to, if I live long enough. It is a Bible with commentary. I can't wait!
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
God is truly novel imo and has never "come into being". To come, a thing must be somewhere else. If there is a somewhere else, there is a somewhere else for that place too and so on and so on........

Yes, and that used to be the atheist model for the universe, some sort of static, eternal, steady state model (no creation = no creator) so this concept shouldn't be a problem for them!
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes, and that used to be the atheist model for the universe, some sort of static, eternal, steady state model (no creation = no creator) so this concept shouldn't be a problem for them!
Again, you are ignoring facts that Russian astrophysicists Alexander Friedmann (1922) and George Gamow (1948, on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN), British Edwin Hubble (1929, discoverer of the first evidence of BB, e.g. Redshift), Americans Ralph Alpher (1948, BBN and CMBR) and Robert Herman (1948, CMBR) - were all early contributors to the "expanding universe model", or the Big Bang model, and were all atheists.

Georges Lemaître wasn't the only astrophysicist for expanding universe model (EUM). He was one of two pioneers of EUM; the other being Alexander Friedmann, 5 years before Lemaître (1927). They both arrived at the same conclusion, but independent to each other's works.

The notion that scientists who are atheists too, would only accept Fred Hoyle's Steady State model (1948), simply because Hoyle is an atheist, showed your level of ignorance and incompetent in astrophysics history.

Why do you ignore Friedmann, Hubble, Gamow, Alpher and Herman being atheists and accepting the Big Bang model?

Have you no shame of your dishonesty in ignoring that part of the Big Bang history?

Edit:
Note the followings:
EUM Expanding Universe Model, now known better as the Big Bang (BB) model, the name acquired in 1948.

BBN Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (Gamow and Alpher, 1948)

CMBR Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (predicted by Alpher and Herman (as well as Gamow) in 1948, but discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, and further confirmed by space telescopes, e.g. COBE, WMAP and Planck space probe)
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I'd like to know how God designed the modern life forms while "resting".

What makes you think he did? He rested from his creative works after the end of the 6th "day". Man and all modern animals were already in existence. Any adaptive process after that was not his direct creation but something programmed into every life form.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What makes you think he did? He rested from his creative works after the end of the 6th "day". Man and all modern animals were already in existence. Any adaptive process after that was not his direct creation but something programmed into every life form.
Are you saying that God imagined every animal by the 6th day? How were they made?
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Man and all modern animals were already in existence. Any adaptive process after that was not his direct creation but something programmed into every life form.
You are saying the cause was from within and they are saying the cause was from without, but essentially. it seems to me, you believe the same as they do.

And all this arguing? For nothing!

Their program is on the outside, but you say God put the program on the inside.
Then, it seems to me, what follows, is that your god put disease into everything from the beginning.
I think their way is kinder. Don't you?
 

Cobol

Code Jockey
We now know the universe came into being from nothing. Virtual particles contain a very small amount of energy and exist for a very small amount of time.

With inflation theory and minimum length scale, Doubly Special Relativity takes place and takes advantage of the massive energies available just after the birth of the universe. The new theory is that negative gravitational energy of the universe and the positive matter energy of the universe basically balanced out and created a zero sum.

Quantum mechanics can lead to the creation of small amount of energy from nothing as long as it exists only for a very small amount of time, which are virtual particles. The existence of such virtual particles has been tested experimentally.

Inflation theory then explains a rapid expansion resulting in the formation of the universe.
Positive energy in the matter, and negative energy in form of gravity was created such that they exactly balanced each other, making total energy of the universe being zero.

Doubly special relativity is a maximum energy and no particle in the universe can attain an energy greater than that energy. Just like the theory of relativity reduces to Newton’s theory for low velocities, doubly special relativity reduces to Einstein’s theory of relativity for low enough energies.

So the universe did and didn't come from nothing. The universe is nothing, it’s a simply a systematic ordered nothing. So god is done for.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can I just emphasize that adaptation is not macro-evolution. Science likes to pretend that they are one and the same, but one does not prove the other.

Science isn't listening to creationists, and it isn't pretending..

But don't feel picked on. They don't listen to anybody but other scientists that are also experts in their fields. Why would they?

They also feel no need to convince you of anything.

Just because species have ability to make minor changes to adapt to a changing environment, doesn't mean that they can ultimately change from an amoeba to a dinosaur, no matter how many millions of years you throw at it.

Irrelevant. Doesn't mean they couldn't, either. You would need to show that it didn't or couldn't happen.

Here's a question that is obviously too difficult to answer, since it's ignored every time it's posed: What could stop smaller evolutionary changes over shorter periods of time from accruing into larger ones? What barrier would prevent that.

Here's an analogous situation from astronomy. Pluto, which was discovered in 1930, 87 years ago, takes 238 years to orbit the sun once, meaning that we have seen Pluto complete about a third of an orbit of since we began observing it.

Imagine if Pluto orbiting the sun contradicted the Christian Bible the way evolution does for creationists. We would now be seeing Christians telling us that Pluto cannot orbit the sun. "Sure," you might say, "it can make small changes in its position, or 'microorbiting,' but 'macroorbiting' - completing a lap around the sun? It has never been observed."

We would then ask what could stop Pluto from going the distance - what barrier is there in nature to prevent shorter excursions through its orbit from becoming larger and larger over time - and you would duck the question only to repeat yourself that it has never been observed and nobody can prove that it ever happened. Both true, and both irrelevant for obvious reasons.

You would also say that there is no evidence for Pluto completing orbits, and you would be as wrong as you are about there being no evidence of single-celled life (amoeba is not a synonym for micro-organism) evolving into dinosaurs. Lacking a natural barrier and given enough time, what could prevent it?

Do you doubt that Pluto can orbit the once sun in 238 years, ten times in 2380 years, or a million times in 238,000,000 million years?

That's the quality of your micro-macroevolution argument.

science wants to make that leap, but it has no real evidence that it ever took place. It has assumptions and it makes guesses and predictions.....but ultimately, it cannot "join the dots" because there is nothing between two species to prove that they evolved from one another.

And here you are making the false "no evidence for Darwinian evolution" claim. The evidence for evolution is so robust that is now only possible that it occurred, or that a superhuman creator designed our DNA and built the earth, seeded it with fossils that are stratified from older, deeper, and simpler to more recent, more superficially located, and including more complex forms to make it look like it did. There's simply no room for any other interpretation of the evidence.

If a god did that, it was a deceiver god. Would your god do that? Is your god a deceiver god like Loki, or is it one of the ones that wants to be known, loved, and worshiped, and punishes people for not believing a holy book?

There is just as much evidence to suggest that the fossil species were separate creations by the same Creator, using the same basic genetic material.

But no evidence for this creator, which is why the naturalistic theory is preferred. It works just as well without a god as with one.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yeah, I know...... Evolution is dead......long live the Creator.

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it." - Dan Barker
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What gives you the superior position? .

It's superior results. Science has lit up the nights, given us engines and motors, global telecommunications, polio and smallpox vaccines, and has sent men to the moon and back. Life is longer, safer, healthier, more comfortable and more interesting because of science.

What have faith based systems given the world? What useful information about our world has come from your holy book? None.

Science isn't my god or my master. The one who is the creator of science is the one I believe. He demonstrates his existence even in microscopic life.

But He didn't tell us about that microscopic life, or how it could help or harm us, or how to construct microscopes to examine it, did He?

Imagine if your god had told us, "Harvest the penicillin fungus on bowls of seaweed extract imbued with broth and harvest its output to consume when sweating and coughing mucus." But it didn't, did it? It either doesn't exist, or it sat idly by indifferent to man's plight.

Man created science. He created the scientific method, and has used it to elicit insights that allow him to understand, predict, and at times control much of reality. No god helped. No holy book helped.

First, men like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Vesalius, Harvey, Bernoulli, Dalton, Avogadro, Priestly, Boyle, Coulomb, Lavoisier, and Volta, told us how things work. They showed us a clockwork universe that ran automatically. That was the first wave of scientists.

Something very interesting followed. If the universe operated automatically - if currents flowed through wires without having to be told to do so, and planets orbited suns in in regular and predictable patterns without having to be pushed around, then a god was no longer needed to do those things. The designer, builder and ruler god like Jehovah was no longer needed, and the deist god, who created the universe we see and then departed it - designer and builder, but not ruler - was born. We still required the builder god. How else could all of this be here otherwise?

Then came the second wave of scientists like Hubble and Darwin that showed us how the universe built itself starting from a material seed, the singularity, and later, the tree of life from a single ancestral cell. Now the builder god was no longer necessary.

With that began the age of atheism as the Christian god became relegated to the origins problems, problems that we have no reason to think require gods, either. This is the god of the gaps, and its church has been at war with science ever since, although increasingly, more and more of its adherents are assimilating the science into their Christian worldview insofar as they can.

I believe that the majority of Christians accept evolution now, but it obviously cannot be Darwinian evolution, a blind and undirected process in which mutations are random, a process from which so many outcomes are possible that each of them is as unlikely including the one we see, and man was not designed. I don't think you can call a belief Christianity if it doesn't include the Christian god directing man's coming into being.

Still, we have this residual hostility to science as you embody.


But getting back to the age of atheism, which we are entering, Dawkins summarized it nicely with, "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Gods are not needed in any of our existing scientific theories such as the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, relativity theory, quantum theory, evolutionary theory, big bang cosmology, and plate tectonics, and there is no reason to think that they will be needed to solve the twin origins problems, which will close off those gaps.

I'm pretty sure that I would also have been a theist had I lived before that first wave of scientists, and a deist if I had lived between the first and second wave of scientists. Nothing else would have made sense.

But I was born in the mid-20th century, and I am an atheist. And as the age of atheism unfurls, our numbers will continue to grow as the number of theists decrease, and those that remain become increasingly less fundamentalist.

Man's religious phase will ultimately be the period connecting the time when he first became intelligent enough to ask why, and the time when he found the answers. Many questions remain unanswered yet, but we can see the pattern now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top