Just Accidental?

[ArtieE]

As I grew, I logically concluded that things don't just happen for no reason. I believe that science calls this "cause and effect".

Yes. That is why when I read the words "In the beginning God created..." I was wondering why they didn't start with the reason why this God would exist in the first place. "In the beginning there was a God because..."

 

[Kirran]

Do you think that God deliberately confuses people by giving them conflicting information in different books, given to people of different faiths in different countries? What kind of god would do that?

No, I think different books were written by humans.

But you learned that in an environment that gave you no alternatives. Being fully immersed in that thinking and having it taught as fact, simply reinforces the suggestions as if they were truth. Peer pressure does not permit dissent in any way. The ridicule would laugh you out of any classroom.

Actually I learnt about it first and foremost of my own accord. As a result of the missionary efforts of a teacher of mine, I started off a creationist in the YECish or IDish sense of the term, but that didn't make sense for long.

There are people at my university who don't believe in evolution. They're not laughed out, much the opposite.

Organic evolution is completely incompatible with the existence of the Creator. It robs him of his creativity and leads people to assume that nature created itself. We cheapen God by giving credit to the creation, without giving due credit to him.

The "observable phenomenon" you speak of is adaptation.....however, there is no "observable phenomenon" that proves organic evolution......that is all suggestion, not verifiable fact. Science presents one as proof of the other, but there is nothing to support that view except by suggesting that it "could have" or "might have" happened the way science "suggests".

I think all creation goes by the will of God. Why do you talk about proof? This isn't maths.

Evolution makes total sense to me, anyway, given my studies into ecology, genetics, genomics, biochemistry and so forth. Obviously to you it does not. Our views are unlikely to change anytime soon.

 

[Deeje]

Yes. That is why when I read the words "In the beginning God created..." I was wondering why they didn't start with the reason why this God would exist in the first place. "In the beginning there was a God because..."

Seriously, if you are going to talk about the Creator by quoting Genesis, the least you can do is understand when Genesis was written and to whom it was written. Israel had no doubt about the existence of their Creator, nor did they need a reason for his existence. They had already seen his power with their own eyes, witnessing the ten plagues in Egypt, each designed to humiliate one of Egypt's gods, and also the parting of the Red Sea and the demise of Pharaoh's entire military force......so your suggestion here would only apply to people like you. No one can quantify an entity whose existence is beyond their comprehension.

God has no need to prove his existence to anyone, because nature itself attests to his creative genius. He has provided a guidebook to assist humans to make wise decisions about their conduct and their future.
He will not force anyone to believe in him, but there will be an accounting one day. No one is forced to believe that either.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right.It doesn't solve anything..

Introducing a creative intelligence is no solution at all it just complicates matters. It is difficult enough to find explanations why and how things exist without introducing a creative intelligence we can't explain the existence of.

Does too!

If a gambler plays 5 royal flushes in a casino, either it was a lucky draw, or he somehow confounded all the security measures and cheated.

which is the simpler explanation?
and which is more likely?

Is Quantum Mechanics more or less complicated than Newtonian physics?

the simplest explanation may be the most tempting, but not always adequate.

 

[gnostic]

There is so much more than appearance that attracts people to one another. We are chemically matched as well as physically attracted. Animals and humans pair up for different reasons. Moral concepts separate us from the animals.....yet when evolution convinced people that they are nothing more than animals, morality has been the casualty, and we are not the better for it.

Moral is a human concept. Outside of human environment, it doesn't exist.

So yes, it is what separate us from other animals.

But the reality is that moral is not real, and its concept is very dependent on us being around for its existence.

And I don't why you need to distract us, by bringing up moral into this topic.

Evolution is purely a biology subject...it has nothing to with moral, which have more to do with ethic, humanities, psychology, and can even relate to religion, but still a man-made concept.

Evolution is an explanation of how the mechanism for changes being possible, and being passed to successive generations for its survival and avoiding extinction.

Why would evolution need to teach or explain morality, which is totally off-topic?

Ok, let me give you a non-evolution biology example. Let's say we are learning just the theory of human anatomy and physiology, and nothing about genetics or future generations. Let's narrow it down further, and talk about the heart, its anatomy and physiology.

The biological theory about the heart would only focus on what it made up of, so we would study the anatomy: it made of muscles, acting like a pump. When we grasp the theory on anatomy of the heart, then we can look at what the heart do and how it functions - the physiological part to the biology of the heart.

If we can grasp both anatomy and physiology of the human heart, we can go towards more advance studies, like the diseases that can affect some people, and how to treat these people who have these diseases.

My points in all this, is that teaching and learning about the heart, don't require biologists to venture into the subject of morals, because it would be totally off-topic, and would not help students in learning about what is the heart and how it work and what it do for the rest of our body.

And it would be the same very other subjects in branches (physics, chemistry, biology, etc, and fields of science.

When you study gravity, how is moral irrelevant to the subject? If we study electromagnetism, how would moral add anything we learn about electromagnetism?

So why should moral be taught in subject of evolution, if it doesn't add anything about it ?

 

[gnostic]

Seriously, if you are going to talk about the Creator by quoting Genesis, the least you can do is understand when Genesis was written and to whom it was written. Israel had no doubt about the existence of their Creator, nor did they need a reason for his existence. They had already seen his power with their own eyes, witnessing the ten plagues in Egypt, each designed to humiliate one of Egypt's gods, and also the parting of the Red Sea and the demise of Pharaoh's entire military force......so your suggestion here would only apply to people like you. No one can quantify an entity whose existence is beyond their comprehension.

God has no need to prove his existence to anyone, because nature itself attests to his creative genius. He has provided a guidebook to assist humans to make wise decisions about their conduct and their future.
He will not force anyone to believe in him, but there will be an accounting one day. No one is forced to believe that either.

You are not answering ArtieE's questions.

And sorry, but the Genesis and all other books in the bible were never written by god.

 

[ArtieE]

Does too!

If a gambler plays 5 royal flushes in a casino, either it was a lucky draw, or he somehow confounded all the security measures and cheated.

which is the simpler explanation?
and which is more likely?

What is the explanation for the existence of the gambler in the first place?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is the explanation for the existence of the gambler in the first place?

It comes down to motive, desire, will, which can only exist in creative intelligence, that's the power of explanation offered by the gambler over the auto card shuffler, his desire for money produces an otherwise improbable result.

Take another example which removes the person from view

You see HELP written in rocks on a deserted island beach, with absolutely no sign of anyone ever being there.

was it the random action of the waves, or do you suspect intelligent agency.. somehow

power of explanation

 

[gnostic]

It comes down to motive, desire, will, which can only exist in creative intelligence, that's the power of explanation offered by the gambler over the auto card shuffler, his desire for money produces an otherwise improbable result.

Take another example which removes the person from view

You see HELP written in rocks on a deserted island beach, with absolutely no sign of anyone ever being there.

was it the random action of the waves, or do you suspect intelligent agency.. somehow

power of explanation

The answer to any one of your examples don't require creationist's stupid and lazy answer that "God did it".

 

[jeager106]

Creationism vs. evolution?
The arguments will never end.
I think it boils down to faith.
Faith = that which cannot be proven nor disproved.
Perhaps some higher intelligence used evolution as a tool?
I dunno.
Neither does anyone else.

 

[jeager106]

The answer to any one of your examples don't require creationist's stupid and lazy answer that "God did it".

Perhaps that is because God did do it.
Prove God didn't do it.
No one can "prove" there is no God just as no one can prove there
is a God.
Yet.
If the Christian Bible is true then one day the human race will know the answer to
the question " Is there a God?".
I think it would be quite nice if there is a God and a Devil.
That being the case then perhaps God will have enough of the Devil's influence upon
mankinds nasty actions and put a stop to it.
Nice notion isn't it?

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps that is because God did do it.
Prove God didn't do it.
No one can "prove" there is no God just as no one can prove there
is a God.

I am not a mathematician, so I cannot "prove" or "disprove" god with some mathematical equations.

The words "prove" and "proof" are mainly used by mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

And while maths are used in most science, most science, with the exception in the fields of theoretical physics, rely more on evidences than proof.

So, there are, on the other hand, no evidences supporting the existence of god.

Believing in God or gods, especially those found in writings, rely neither on evidences, nor on proofs, but on superstitions and on blind faith.

 

[Deeje]

No, I think different books were written by humans.

So, has God just started life off here on this planet, and left it to its own devices up to now? He has provided no guidance whatsoever? So if left to his own wisdom and knowledge, what has man proven to himself up to this point? Are you confident that he can solve the problems leading to him being capable of destroying the only home we have in this universe?

Actually I learnt about it first and foremost of my own accord. As a result of the missionary efforts of a teacher of mine, I started off a creationist in the YECish or IDish sense of the term, but that didn't make sense for long.

YEC is rubbish. Any wonder you rejected it. But did you make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water? There is middle ground that does not involve compromise.

There are people at my university who don't believe in evolution. They're not laughed out, much the opposite.

There are definitely no ID proponents in evolutionary science. Surely this is not what you are suggesting? I didn't say there were no ID supporters at universities.

I think all creation goes by the will of God. Why do you talk about proof? This isn't maths.

The whole universe operates on mathematical laws so precise that the supermoon's next appearance (as well as all its previous appearances) can be determined with absolute accuracy.

Evolution makes total sense to me, anyway, given my studies into ecology, genetics, genomics, biochemistry and so forth. Obviously to you it does not. Our views are unlikely to change anytime soon.

That is just the point. We are all making decisions about God and creation and accountability that will determine our eternal destiny.
These decisions have to be made by us with no coercion from God, so that we are judged by our own choices and the reasoning of our own hearts.
As I have said, there is no eternal torment for making the wrong decision. There is just life or death. You either make a decision to merit one or the other. If people do not want God in their lives, he will not force them to live that life.

 

[Kirran]

So, has God just started life off here on this planet, and left it to its own devices up to now? He has provided no guidance whatsoever? So if left to his own wisdom and knowledge, what has man proven to himself up to this point? Are you confident that he can solve the problems leading to him being capable of destroying the only home we have in this universe?

I believe God's will animates every movement, every action, every appearance in form. That all forms are the manifestation of God, and that evolution just like everything else we observe in the universe is the play of God.

YEC is rubbish. Any wonder you rejected it. But did you make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water? There is middle ground that does not involve compromise.

To be honest, that was an exaggeration. No time scales were really mentioned, it was just non-evolutionist creationism.

There are definitely no ID proponents in evolutionary science. Surely this is not what you are suggesting? I didn't say there were no ID supporters at universities.

You were talking about how people studying biology who questioned evolution would be laughed out. I'm saying that there were some students who weren't evolutionists.

That is just the point. We are all making decisions about God and creation and accountability that will determine our eternal destiny.
These decisions have to be made by us with no coercion from God, so that we are judged by our own choices and the reasoning of our own hearts.
As I have said, there is no eternal torment for making the wrong decision. There is just life or death. You either make a decision to merit one or the other. If people do not want God in their lives, he will not force them to live that life.

This is your set of doctrines, anyway. I have no reason to hold to much of it. As far as I am concerned, God is in my life. I have experienced the presence of God, I have felt the grace and love of God, and I have dedicated my life to God.

 

[gnostic]

The whole universe operates on mathematical laws so precise that the supermoon's next appearance (as well as all its previous appearances) can be determined with absolute accuracy.

That have do with astronomers being good at maths, nothing to do with any god or this equally non-existent "Intelligent Designer".

When astronomers, ancient or modern astronomers, have studied the moon enough, they can make predictions through equations and calculations.

You claiming that a god or Designer being responsible, is nothing more, nothing less than you merely projecting your false belief and applying circular and wishful thinking to justify your superstition.

 

[Shad]

There is no contradiction.....Matthew 25:46 is Jesus sentencing the "goats" to eternal punishment. The word used in that verse is "kolasis" which means "correction, punishment, penalty". Eternal death is the opposite of eternal life, so eternal death is an eternal punishment.

It does not say eternal death but eternal punishment. One can not eternally punish something which no longer exists.

I don't need another verse to demonstrate that death is the highest punishment there was under God's Law.

You need to read your bible as you were wrong about the verse above.

In order to suffer eternally after death, one would have to live forever.....yet eternal life is promised only to the righteous, not the wicked.

Yet this is contradicted by the above verse. Matthew 22:13, Matthew 8:12 Matthew. 5:22, Matthew 5:29, 2 Thes 1:9

In the end the Bible contradicts itself, nothing more.

 

[jeager106]

Re: the Bible.
If nothing else it's The Handbook for Human Behavior.
Just my 2 cents worth.
(caveat: disregard all the violence in the o.t. please)

 

[Deeje]

Moral is a human concept. Outside of human environment, it doesn't exist.

So yes, it is what separate us from other animals.

And you say that like you don't believe humans are just animals descended from all the rest in the dim dark past.

Why do humans alone possess a sense of morality? Doesn't this prove that we are not animals?

But the reality is that moral is not real, and its concept is very dependent on us being around for its existence.

And I don't why you need to distract us, by bringing up moral into this topic.

The Creator has endowed us with his attributes, which explains why no other creatures consciously exhibit morality by their own choice.

Evolution is purely a biology subject...it has nothing to with moral, which have more to do with ethic, humanities, psychology, and can even relate to religion, but still a man-made concept.

I listen to this kind of rhetoric and shake my head. Humans are so much more than biological creatures. Telling them that they are just animals with no one to account to for their decisions except other humans has not worked out for the good of mankind....has it? Without morality, humans can act like animals and think its normal. What do you see today?

Evolution is an explanation of how the mechanism for changes being possible, and being passed to successive generations for its survival and avoiding extinction.

Why would evolution need to teach or explain morality, which is totally off-topic?

Evolution doesn't teach anything of value to anyone. And that is the problem. Those who accept evolution are not necessarily good humanitarians....in fact, evolution promotes selfishness to the point where "me-first" is the order of the day. How is mankind benefited? Who created nuclear weapons? Plastics? Poisonous agricultural and industrial chemicals?

Ok, let me give you a non-evolution biology example. Let's say we are learning just the theory of human anatomy and physiology, and nothing about genetics or future generations. Let's narrow it down further, and talk about the heart, its anatomy and physiology.

The biological theory about the heart would only focus on what it made up of, so we would study the anatomy: it made of muscles, acting like a pump. When we grasp the theory on anatomy of the heart, then we can look at what the heart do and how it functions - the physiological part to the biology of the heart.

If we can grasp both anatomy and physiology of the human heart, we can go towards more advance studies, like the diseases that can affect some people, and how to treat these people who have these diseases.

My points in all this, is that teaching and learning about the heart, don't require biologists to venture into the subject of morals, because it would be totally off-topic, and would not help students in learning about what is the heart and how it work and what it do for the rest of our body.

Morals come into play when doctors can perform delicate surgery on an unborn or newborn infant, and then advocate abortion. Morals determine how we use the knowledge that science gives is.

And it would be the same very other subjects in branches (physics, chemistry, biology, etc, and fields of science.

When you study gravity, how is moral irrelevant to the subject? If we study electromagnetism, how would moral add anything we learn about electromagnetism?

Again, morals determine how we use the knowledge we have. We would not ignore the law of gravity by trying to defy it.
Natural laws govern a lot of the things we do....like breathing for example.

So why should moral be taught in subject of evolution, if it doesn't add anything about it ?

Obviously morals mean little to a lot of people these days, but they mean a lot to me because I see what belief in evolution has done in the world. Eliminating the Creator and his moral code from human consciousness, has not done anything to promote peace or to modify what science wants to do. Atomic weapons are just one of their more odious achievements.

Animals are not really expected to make moral choices so we see them disappearing from the world. Families are breaking down, children are not being given decent role models and we wonder why the world is the way it is.....

 

[Deeje]

I believe God's will animates every movement, every action, every appearance in form. That all forms are the manifestation of God, and that evolution just like everything else we observe in the universe is the play of God.

I must say, you have a very convenient form of worship....did your god create this play with a script or is it kind of ad lib?

To be honest, that was an exaggeration. No time scales were really mentioned, it was just non-evolutionist creationism.

"Non-evolutionist creationism?....what is that exactly?

You were talking about how people studying biology who questioned evolution would be laughed out. I'm saying that there were some students who weren't evolutionists.

When our High School kids do science exams, they are expected to give the "correct" answers about the process of organic evolution taught in their classrooms. You lose marks for writing the "wrong" answers. To us, evolution will always be the "wrong" answer, but to pass exams, you have to say things like...."science teaches that"...such and such a thing happened, even when you don't believe it.
To penalize students for not accepting science's interpretation of the evidence is morally repugnant. Science has never proven that evolution ever took place the way they say it did. Forcing their views on children is an indication of how sick the education system has become. Since when is it wrong to have an alternate view when there is no real definitive evidence for either one?

This is your set of doctrines, anyway. I have no reason to hold to much of it. As far as I am concerned, God is in my life. I have experienced the presence of God, I have felt the grace and love of God, and I have dedicated my life to God.

If your god allows you the freedom to worship him in any way you choose, you might want to think again about the God of the Bible.....I'm afraid he is nothing like the convenient god you follow. To dedicate one's life to God is not to follow a crowd whose main agenda is to eliminate him from existence. Marrying God and evolution is an unacceptable compromise, in much the same way as Roman Catholicism fused itself to pagan sun worship. What results fails to support either one.

 

[Deeje]

That have do with astronomers being good at maths, nothing to do with any god or this equally non-existent "Intelligent Designer".

When astronomers, ancient or modern astronomers, have studied the moon enough, they can make predictions through equations and calculations.

And calculations are based on......?

Aren't those precise laws based on predictions that can be and have been proven...time and again?
When have evolutionist's predictions ever been proven? Their claims are empty.

You claiming that a god or Designer being responsible, is nothing more, nothing less than you merely projecting your false belief and applying circular and wishful thinking to justify your superstition.

And your claiming that a process no one can prove is......what?
Are you not projecting your own false beliefs and circular reasoning to justify your own beliefs? Pot...meet...kettle.

You act as if you have the high ground here for some reason.....when in actual fact, what you have is nothing more tangible than what we have.....faith that your teachers are interpreting the evidence correctly......what if they are way off the mark? If the Creator revealed himself tomorrow, what would happen to your theory?