The "creature" you call the creator why and how does it exist? Who or what chose for it to exist? Or is it the product of "undirected" forces?
-
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?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
You have your own gods then?
Since a "creature" is a creation, the entity I know as God is not a creature.
Don't you find it bizarre only because of your acceptance of evolution as undisputed fact?
I do not accept evolution as undisputed fact...I have disputed it throughout this entire thread. I have presented proof that science guesses what "might have" happened and makes "suggestions" according to their pre-conceived notions. They have no more proof for their theory than I have for my Creator....and that is a fact.
I never came at it assuming it was fact, but when there wasn't anything preventing me from accepting it the evidence was just overwhelming. I've since worked in science, and personally see some of the processes at work.
I realise that your understanding of your faith prevents you from being open to any of this, so responses really are for the benefit of lurkers.
Yo, @sayak83, are you gonna turn round and explain nyaya-vaisheshika and its relative merits vs madhyamika Buddhism now?
Believe it or not, I was an evolutionist in my youth, but the more I studied nature, the more I saw purpose and design....there was more "evidence" for a "Creator" than there was for blind undirected evolution. It was the lack of convincing evidence that turned me off it.
When you read what they really say, it is obvious that the power of suggestion works.
My faith was attained after I had dismissed evolution....not the other way around.
Yo, @sayak83, are you gonna turn round and explain nyaya-vaisheshika and its relative merits vs madhyamika Buddhism now?
People with belief in "gods" telling me that I am nuts for not believing in evolution is pretty funny actually.
ROTFL The answer to "why" we are here is that we were created by a Creator but it's pointless to ask "why" this Creator is here? Did it just occur to you that if "why" doesn't apply to your Creator why should it apply to the universe or us?
Last edited:
People with belief in "gods" telling me that I am nuts for not believing in evolution is pretty funny actually.
You don't know much about Hinduism, do you? Polytheist Hindus do exist, but they're a distinct minority. Of the current Hindu membership of RF, I don't think we have a single polytheist. Mainstream Hindu understanding is along the lines of 'Only God exists, the universe is his play and is non-separate from Him, all forms of gods found in Hinduism and other religions are forms taken by the one God.'
No, just unavoidable given the laws of physics and mathematics.
I put the Creator in a category of his own....he is a unique being who has never told us "what" he is (except that he is a spirit.)
Since I can only define a spirit in human terms, I don't think it would fully describe the entity whose power brought all matter into existence. Why don't you ask him.....? [/QUOTE]
Science is not equipped to investigate "why," only "how." Purpose is outside of science' purview.
Not science' purview -- an entirely different magesterium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Roll of the dice -- they just are.
You're being apophenic.
Not guesswork, and the 'facts' were known before anyone attempted to illustrate them. Science is not influenced by illustrations -- quite the opposite.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
We do not have gods. Some of us choose to follow a path that recognizes multiple Gods, others only one God, others a trans-personal Reality beyond any God, and others no God or transcendence whatsoever. What makes us one is not the name or number of deities we choose to (or not to) worship but the contour of the path by which we choose to practice whatever worldview that we adopt.
I have been meaning to get to it, but not been successful yet.I never came at it assuming it was fact, but when there wasn't anything preventing me from accepting it the evidence was just overwhelming. I've since worked in science, and personally see some of the processes at work.
I realise that your understanding of your faith prevents you from being open to any of this, so responses really are for the benefit of lurkers.
Yo, @sayak83, are you gonna turn round and explain nyaya-vaisheshika and its relative merits vs madhyamika Buddhism now?
It will be a waste of time in this thread I think
I have been meaning to get to it, but not been successful yet.
It will be a waste of time in this thread I think
Responses might be along the lines of '...but you're a polytheist!'
It does not appear that you have studied anything at all. Because all you have so far said goes like:-
"It looks incredulous to me that.."
"Because the word probably and suggests are there, scientists are merely guessing.."
"That's not my definition..."
This is a deliberate misunderstanding of how scientists present stuff coupled with arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Nothing that you have said so far suggests to me that you have any understanding of evolution at all and are simply going by what your gut instincts tell you that complex patterns in life must have a creator. Science has no place for gut instincts, it looks at processes and events that occur with extreme diligence and care and finds the explanation and theory that evidence supports, and not that which untrained instinct or intuition suggests.
No, its obvious that careful investigation, analysis, experimentation and verification/falsification is at work. You are seeing what you want to see.
Your lack of understanding on how true conclusions can be reached from evidence in science is the problem then.
People with belief in "gods" telling me that I am nuts for not believing in evolution is pretty funny actually.
Why so? Truth and Falsity of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with whether God or Gods exist or not, no matter how much you believe otherwise does not make it so. Its your particular theology that is the problem, not the existence of God.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/
https://ncse.com/news/2009/07/opinions-evolution-from-ten-countries-004885
What you have with your conservative Christianity is poor theology, nothing else.
I studied, but my natural skepticism didn't allow me to accept "suggestions" based on very little real evidence. I saw through the suggestions and became wary of the story they were trying to sell with what I recognized as a biased and very flimsy story line, based on a pre-conceived idea. Peer pressure added its weight to the theory.
You obviously have no idea of the power of suggestion....especially if it is given by those who have gained your respect. Politicians and advertisers know all about it....they depend on it in fact. It only needs to appear to be credible.
No, it is me demanding more than science can "suggest" "might have" been the way things "could have" transpired if you swallow the rhetoric and the graphics supplied to add weight to the suggestion. What you accept as "facts" are nothing of the sort.
I know what my own intellect and life experience tells me. Science cannot override those faculties in me. I know how the world operates and it amazes me that people can fall for something when they have no evidence for it....that something can be promoted as fact, when there are no real facts backing it up. All science has its its own biased interpretation of the "evidence". Like this for example.......Just Accidental?
Less than 25% of a skeleton and look what they come up with?
I don't buy this
It is fired by imagination, not actual proof. There are primitive peoples still in existence even today. Who said we all started out as unintelligent ape-men and progressed to what we see today? It is a suggestion, based on a premise, not on fact. If the premise is flawed to begin with, then the conclusion is flawed right along with it.
Anything that makes you abandon natural "gut instinct" is going against your own human nature......why did we "evolve" gut instinct if it has no purpose and can be ignored altogether?
And you are not?
I am a lover of true science.....natural science....biological science....ecological science....astronomical science.....all are wonderfully instructive if taken for what they are....which is man's present limited understanding of his existence, his environment and his place in the universal scheme of things. You can't possible say that we know all there is to know....scientists themselves will tell you that they have only scratched the surface at this point in time. Conclusions reached in science can only be relied upon today.....what of tomorrow when it can all be changed by one 'discovery'? What have your staunch arguments for today accomplished?
Really? If the Creator was to reveal himself tomorrow so that no one could doubt his existence or his creative power.....you think the scientist's view of evolution would not be altered? I think even the theistic evolutionists would be forced to change their opinion.
If you want God to go away, he will. If you want to give credit for all that exists to blind chance, then that is your prerogative. No one is forcing anyone to believe anything.....we believe something because we want to....its really that simple.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
This thread was created to give the alternate view to evolution and to show the flimsy foundations on which the human scientific view is built.Pictures are worth a thousand words.
Eeep! I hope we never cross paths in the workplace!
Gut is essentially our immediate reaction to stimulii. It is well-proven to be a poor decision making tool whenever complexity is involved, but it can be pretty bad in simple situations too. Unless you would think a child should run from a barking Rottweiler? I unfortunately saw the end result of that...
This is most applicable to the religious ideology you hold on to rather than anything in science anywhere.
The rhetoric and bias comes from the religious ideology that peddles ignorance as certainty despoiling knowledge and truth with a mockery that the conservative faithful swallow like sheep. Science understands that all knowledge is based on probability estimates based on evidence and nothing more.
Science promotes nothing beyond its level of certainties. Your carping about images used in popular articles to aid the understanding of those who are not scientfically trained is just a desperate attempts to legitimize your blind rigid faith based evidence-less beliefs.
Tell me
IS the World Flat? For sure most maps depict the earth that way.
Wow, the map makers are touting a lie aren't they for making the world flat!
Oh look! another travesty! They are making alchohol molecules look like this:-
What a travesty! All those lying chemists! You can't trust anyone these days!
The sheer childish petulance of your objections blows my mind.
I don't buy thisor this
It is fired by imagination, not actual proof. There are primitive peoples still in existence even today. Who said we all started out as unintelligent ape-men and progressed to what we see today? It is a suggestion, based on a premise, not on fact. If the premise is flawed to begin with, then the conclusion is flawed right along with it.
If you were actually serious about interacting with the science you would have interacted with the evidence about human evolution I have detailed in previous posts
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/just-accidental.191045/page-21#post-4929025
And not make such silly objections about pictures that are aid as visualization tools so that ordinary folks can easily grasp the probable form of the creature whose bones the scientists are discussing. That said, the human species above is Homo Erectus, whose multiple available complete skeletons as well as use of fire gives us great evidence for reconstructing the body form on everything other than skin color.
And no, this no modern human skeleton as any trained anatomist or a doctor of bones will tell you.
Gut instincts are there only to help us survive from day to day in the messy world of human society and the world at large, and not for an analysis of truths. For that one needs to abandon ones instincts and use rationality and empiricism.
1) Gut instinct militates against the idea that the world is around spinning sphere revolving around the world in empty space
2)Gut instinct militates against the idea that the substances are made of atoms, light is both a wave and a particle and has a finite speed.
3) Gut instinct militates against the idea of electricity, of bacteria or virus, against aircrafts, steel ships that float in water...
To pursue science and engineering the first thing one has to do is to leave the gut instinct at the door. Maybe useful to dodge snakes in backyards or doing social networking or at the football field, but not in science. For that we have rationality, logic, math, evidence and experimentation.
No.And you are not?
Tomorrow can take care of itself. The only thing I care about as a scientist is that I honestly and unbiasedly look at the evidence that is there today and assess it to have the most likely version of truth about the reality that can be constructed today.
If this Creator is not a fiction and were to reveal Himself, He will confirm that He let life arise on earth through evolution through natural selection. And He will not be the the One your Bible speaks about, which is a fiction. What will you do then?
I believe things because evidence warrants it irrespective of what I want to or not. That is the difference between you and me. Stop projecting your decision to believe whatever you want to inspite of evidence on me.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
And I shall show just how flimsy your objections are.
Indeed they are
JakofHearts
2 Tim 1.7
It's not as metaphorical as you'd think. Our brain and gut are interconnected by an extensive network of neurons and a highway of chemicals and hormones, 100 million of them. So this emerging view of how the enteric nervous system in our bellies goes far beyond just processing the food we eat shows science is revealing some interesting discoveries about the human body. Those "butterflies" in the belly can now be scientifically explained and shows a tendency that the term "trust your gut" holds weight in decision making, or at least some aspect of it.
Source: http://hubpages.com/education/your-second-brain-is-in-your-heart
Well, it seems to me that I hear way more people say..."if only I'd gone with my gut".....than people who say they were glad they did....that would be because those who did probably had nothing to say about how badly things turned out.
- Status