Creation or Evolustionists theory

Quote from superdan54 : Honestly, I think this falls into the logical limitations of omnipotence argument I presented. The common thought experiment is whether God can make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. The answer is no because God's theoretical omnipotent strength is an actual infinite (sometimes denoted as aleph). The mass of a rock can only be potentially infinite, approaching infinity, but can never have the all-encompassing value of all infinite mass, and even in a physical sense is limited to 10^80 atoms. Likewise God's goodness is all-encompassing aleph, thus he cannot make something as good as himself, nor has he expressed any desire to do so, for aleph glory is reserved for Him alone.

I understand what you're saying, but there are still issues. First of all, God's ability to create a rock so large he cannot lift it is an inherent paradox. This is one of the arguments atheists commonly cite against God's omnipotence, actually. Paradoxes are a philosopher's best friend.

Regardless, God's omnipotence is a requisite of the Judeo-Christian perspective on God. If God is not omnipotent, this entire argument is moot because the most principle aspect of God's alleged existence will have been proven false, meaning if some really ridiculously powerful God-like being does exist, we have no business worshiping it because we really have no clue who or what it is.

Further, though, I don't see anything inherently paradoxical about the idea of God creating a human that is just as good (or just as powerful) as he is. Can you point out how your general argument against God's omnipotence applies here? Are you trying to claim that the impossibility of God's omnipotence implies that God may not have been powerful or capable enough to actually do as I suggest?

Quote from Epiphyte : I think you would agree that belief in God has never been necessary. Advances in science have just made it easier to live a life without consideration of God. Centuries ago human's saw phenomena on a daily basis that would have been positively baffling without the explanation provided by there being a God (lightning, stars, the sun and moon, platypus , etc.). The fact that we have delved to such esoteric ideas as singularities in this discussion supports the idea that for many people, consideration of God may not be necessary. You would probably say that they are not asking deep enough questions, right? I would agree. Here's what I see as the big problem. Science has provided explanations of many mysteries and revealed many more, but religion has not kept up with science and is still hung up on supernatural explanations of the old mysteries.

Just wait a few hundred years. When we science types work out how life and death work, we'll get a nice big gold star. You just watch. Well, watch as a ghost. If you're into that sort of thing.

Quote from IMMensaMind : And in saying so, you're admitting that you follow Science as a religion: you have blind faith that such will be the outcome, though you have no way of knowing. It's what I've been saying, and equally legitimate as any belief in God. Belief in God, and belief in Science, are not mutually exclusive. You do not hear those who believe in God attempting to crush Scientific research; you instead hear two other things: 1) You hear secularists attempting to use Science to delegitimize belief in God, as darkfrog admitted (and you also insinuate); 2) You hear those who believe in God objecting to those attempts. You just created - out of blind faith - something which could easily be claimed to parallel any article of faith in any religion that you deride as unsubstantiated. You, in short, just offered a tenet of a contrived secular religion. You are no different than anyone else who believes something simply because they want to.

I don't follow Science as a religion. I follow Science as a hobby, and believe that Science will continue to uncover facts about our universe. I don't have blind faith, but I do have faith. History has shown me that human advancement in Science has occurred, and I have faith that advancement will continue. That faith cannot be considered 'blind'.

And in no way am I attempting to delegitimize anyones belief in God. Like many others have said, we have the freedom to believe whatever we want. I am merely stating a hypothesis, which you chose to ignore. If/when we find other life forms, and they tell people how the universe was created, and present you with written history similar to our own in respect to Jesus, would you continue with your current beliefs, or would you possibly change your beliefs based on what that other life form considers true?

I believe in what can presented me to as fact. I believe in asteroids because they've landed on Earth. I believe in stellar objects because science has presented facts to prove they exist. I have FAITH that there are other forms of life outside of our galaxy, because probability tells me that faith is not without reason.

Quote from IMMensaMind : You are no different than anyone else who believes something simply because factual evidence has been tested and proven it to be true.

Fixed

Quote from Epiphyte : I think you would agree that belief in God has never been necessary.

I guess it depends upon what is necessary to you. I think that you'll hear from those who believe in God that they've constructed a circumstance around which their belief has merit, including the belief that they are "redeemed" through such a belief. In that case, such a belief is very necessary. That is, also, a reflection of my own belief system.

Quote : Advances in science have just made it easier to live a life without consideration of God. Centuries ago human's saw phenomena on a daily basis that would have been positively baffling without the explanation provided by there being a God (lightning, stars, the sun and moon, platypus , etc.).

I think I disagree here. I don't think we have fewer questions and wonderments than we did before, I think that we may even have more - they're just at a higher level. It's all a frame of reference thing. I do think, though, that your view may be (and I don't mean this in a personal way) heightening the arrogance of Man, elevating his importance and power to affect our surroundings. Anytime Man believes that he can disregard belief in a Higher Power, that means that Man is elevating his pride.

That is not a good thing in my estimation. Your response may be that you find all this new discovery of our universe the opposite: humbling. I may agree some people react that way (though I find that it would create humility only in people like Libertarian, who is amazed by the vastness of Creation, and instinctively believes that a Creator exists and was responsible), but my worry isn't some people. It's those who will go megalomanic in reaction.

Quote : The fact that we have delved to such esoteric ideas as singularities in this discussion supports the idea that for many people, consideration of God may not be necessary. You would probably say that they are not asking deep enough questions, right? I would agree.

Before, I was hearing that Science may be a way to "know the nature of God" that we may, through our discoveries, be finding a way to "get closer" to God. Here, you seem to imply the opposite.

That's what I'm saying, and why I believe that Secularism can be very dangerous. Essentially, we can agree (as it's evidence even in this thread), that some people use awareness and increased knowledge of our surroundings to become more humble, and to feel a greater insight into God, and the power of God, and some people use it to distance themselves from the very idea of God, and polarize themselves and all they can influence from those who choose to believe in God.

They are aligning themselves in an effort to both defeat the idea of God, and in the process, every religion. Such an effort will not and can not end well.

Quote : Here's what I see as the big problem. Science has provided explanations of many mysteries and revealed many more, but religion has not kept up with science and is still hung up on supernatural explanations of the old mysteries.

Explain, and example. I need an example to address what you see as a "big problem".

Quote from darkfrog : He obviously doesn't because he has been arguing against that idea for the last 20 pages.

Keep in mind that you are on the opposite end of that spectrum - and the preceding post explains where I see a danger in these polarizations. Whereas believers can evangelize, there is no mainstream effort to stigmatize or demonize people who do not believe in God. In fact, the mainstream media is utterly absent expressions and celebrations of faith - though the opposite ideology is on display all over (shows which feature demons, vampires, witches, gays, etc).

My own belief system and my own instinct tells me that these opposing ideologies are on a crash course.

Quote from IMMensaMind : Keep in mind that you are on the opposite end of that spectrum - and the preceding post explains where I see a danger in these polarizations. Whereas believers can evangelize, there is no mainstream effort to stigmatize or demonize people who do not believe in God. In fact, the mainstream media is utterly absent expressions and celebrations of faith - though the opposite ideology is on display all over (shows which feature demons, vampires, witches, gays, etc). My own belief system and my own instinct tells me that these opposing ideologies are on a crash course.

Careful with the references to gays, Mr. We Don't Demonize Other Human Beings.

Besides, even though there are no attempts in the mass media to stigmatize non-believers, I'm not sure exactly how "back-water" you could call it. There is definitely a popular trend present in every church I've ever learned about to draw a very clear line between believers and non-believers. Much of the time, this line actually is drawn by demonizing non-believers--you know, agents of the devil and such. You would not believe the number of Christians I have had conversations about religion with who somehow genuinely came to the conclusion that I either was possessed by or actually was Satan, attempting to deceive them. Again, not all Christians will do this, but many will, and many churches encourage it.

Quote from IMMensaMind : Anytime Man believes that he can disregard belief in a Higher Power, that means that Man is elevating his pride.

I think one could say that any religion attempts to understand God. Surely that's also an elevation of pride, to think one can even begin to understand God.

Quote from IMMensaMind : That's what I'm saying, and why I believe that Secularism can be very dangerous. Essentially, we can agree (as it's evidence even in this thread), that some people use awareness and increased knowledge of our surroundings to become more humble, and to feel a greater insight into God, and the power of God, and some people use it to distance themselves from the very idea of God, and polarize themselves and all they can influence from those who choose to believe in God. They are aligning themselves in an effort to both defeat the idea of God, and in the process, every religion. Such an effort will not and can not end well.

Although I think we're in general agreement here, I don't like the dichotomy you set up with one side interpreting the vast Universe and being humbled by God's power while giving a negative stereotype of atheists on the other side. It's also possible to be humbled by the vastness of the Universe and how small we are without consideration of God.

Quote from IMMensaMind : Explain, and example. I need an example to address what you see as a "big problem".

The geologic time scale vs. the creationist time scale would be one.

Quote from Mixels : Careful with the references to gays, Mr. We Don't Demonize Other Human Beings. Besides, even though there are no attempts in the mass media to stigmatize non-believers, I'm not sure exactly how "back-water" you could call it. There is definitely a popular trend present in every church I've ever learned about to draw a very clear line between believers and non-believers. Much of the time, this line actually is drawn by demonizing non-believers--you know, agents of the devil and such. You would not believe the number of Christians I have had conversations about religion with who somehow genuinely came to the conclusion that I either was possessed by or actually was Satan, attempting to deceive them. Again, not all Christians will do this, but many will, and many churches encourage it.

And the belief that secular thought is a danger to society is just another way of stigmatizing atheism.

Quote from darkfrog : And the belief that secular thought is a danger to society is just another way of stigmatizing atheism.

Yeah, I read that response after I finished writing my post. I should have edited but didn't. It's also a little hypocritical, now that I think about it, given the very long and disgracefully violent history of religion in general. Since secularism doesn't have much of a written history, though, it's hard to compare. I expect we're all equally dangerous when our core values are threatened--especially if we feel that the implications of those threats could harm or endanger our loved ones.

Quote from darkfrog : You seem to continue to be threatened by my contention that belief in God is not necessary but I think you are extrapolating it to areas that I never meant. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to think that I am also saying that people shouldn't believe in God.

Even a scintilla of disdain in your reactions to posts from any believer in God (and you're no where near as guilty of such displays of emotion as other posters are) belies that undercurrent of belief.

If you show disdain for a believer, you are implying that people shouldn't believe. If you think it is crazy to believe, you are saying the same thing.

Quote : I guess the best way to explain the difference is to understand that I don't think that belief is or should be contingent on what we know about the natural world.

Our beliefs are formulated by things and people in our surroundings. It is the only input we have. Even our own psychological structures support the notion of God, which is where (if the notion of God wasn't interjected by God Himself - as described in the Old Testament, where He had interaction with people that formed the basis of today's belief) this belief arose.

BTW: I do notice conscious, sub-, or unconscious efforts on your part to affect the premise here: you interject the word "natural", when this discussion holds that at issue. It may not be "natural" at all, but created...but...carry on...

Quote : As superdan pointed out, the idea of God transcends the physical into an area that science cannot delve.

Which means that Science cannot be solely relied upon - which was the core contention of my debate many pages ago!...

Quote : I am merely saying the same thing that even many religious people have claimed over the last century that science, by giving us natural explanations for things that previously were attributed to God, it allows the idea that the world can exist without a deity.

See, here I think you merge multiple beliefs into one amalgam, and do so illegitimately. True: there may be people who threw up their hands and said: "See! The sun rises due to The Lord!" - and call it a day. The secularist merely points out the discovery of our planets as round, and in orbit, and explains to those, saying "no: the Sun rises because we're in orbit around it".

That grants short shrift, however, to both parties: the first party may still be correct, as there is no way to account for whatever involvement or hidden mechanism may be at play causing the reactions of the planetary bodies to do so, and no suitable explanation for how these planets came into being with which to begin (which is why we're discussing the Big Bang), and the second party may find itself content merely to have more understanding, and miss the potential wonder and grandeur of a higher purpose in those actions.

In short, while we can, via secular science, gain access to a greater understanding of how these phenomenon take place, we are not addressing why these phenomenon take place. The why gives the meaning.

It addresses the "why are we here?" aspect of our collective psyches - a question which screams to be addressed. Some people either have no such voice, or have deeply suppressed it, which I find pyschologically dysfunctional, and potentially harmful. This is strictly my own personal opinion. I believe we are wired to believe in Higher Powers, and I believe there is a reason for that.

The former, though, is why people like Epiphyte (IIRC) can say "evolution takes place for no purpose whatsoever". I find such a response very hollow; unfulfilling, and the cause of less trust in those who would have such ideology.

Quote : As Christopher Hitchens said in the Templeton Foundation conversation [templeton.org], "Religion, remember, is theism not deism.

Which is why I've attempted to restrain this topic to deism. Theism is much too convoluted, and requires the acceptance of the premise of deism with which to begin.

Quote : Faith cannot rest itself on the argument that there might or might not be a prime mover. Faith must believe in answered prayers, divinely ordained morality, heavenly warrant for circumcision, the occurrence of miracles or what you will.

I'm not sure why this contention should hold water. It sounds merely like someone who wants to understand the nature of Faith without having any himself. I believe in God though I do not recollect any of my prayers being answered - though it is certainly possible that what I am and have are as a result of just that; and whatnot.

Faith can be purely blind, and unrewarded. That, perhaps, is what makes faith valuable. How difficult could having faith possibly be, if all prayers were answered, all morality acquired from outside; all miracles commonplace? The charter of faith itself would be challenged.

One believes something as a weaker alternative to knowing something. Only the most faithful can bolster, cajole and tease their beliefs to such a powerful level as to reach "knowing" - at which point they make of themselves much more a juicy target for the likes of you.

Quote : Physics and chemistry and biology and paleontology and archeology have, at a minimum, given us explanations for what used to be mysterious, and furnished us with hypotheses that are at least as good as, or very much better than, the ones offered by any believers in other and inexplicable dimensions."

I think this is representative of so many atheists who utterly miss the point. The "how" is nifty - certainly. The why, however, is the sizzle which sells the steak. I think these conversations are confused by the two different goals the adversaries may have in the debate: while I find the "how" very interesting, what really appeals to me is the frosting on it - the why.

The metaphysicist within me and others constantly ask the secularist the why question, and we only hear in response - when the knowledge is available - the how. The two ships cross in the night, each lobbing grenades at each other, oblivious to the cross purposes.

Science is for answering "how". The problem is when secularists also use that as some poor substitute for why. There. I've said it 4 different ways now.

Quote : However, I don't see why you continue to see this as a threat as belief is a personal thing.

Because history has shown us that people of faith can be stigmatized, persecuted, suffer, and die at the hands of those without it.

Quote : If some people find solace in science as the explanation for how things are, others can find comfort in their spiritual connection with the god of their choice. Neither mine or any other atheists belief or lack of belief should be an impediment to you, superdan, talgot or anyone else to believe what you want to believe.

If that were all there were to it, this thread would not have lasted 150 pages.

Quote from Mixels : I understand what you're saying, but there are still issues. First of all, God's ability to create a rock so large he cannot lift it is an inherent paradox. This is one of the arguments atheists commonly cite against God's omnipotence, actually. Paradoxes are a philosopher's best friend. Regardless, God's omnipotence is a requisite of the Judeo-Christian perspective on God. If God is not omnipotent, this entire argument is moot because the most principle aspect of God's alleged existence will have been proven false, meaning if some really ridiculously powerful God-like being does exist, we have no business worshiping it because we really have no clue who or what it is. Further, though, I don't see anything inherently paradoxical about the idea of God creating a human that is just as good (or just as powerful) as he is. Can you point out how your general argument against God's omnipotence applies here? Are you trying to claim that the impossibility of God's omnipotence implies that God may not have been powerful or capable enough to actually do as I suggest? Just wait a few hundred years. When we science types work out how life and death work, we'll get a nice big gold star. You just watch. Well, watch as a ghost. If you're into that sort of thing.

I bolded this to substantiate exactly what I've been saying. I'll also point out that Mixels is exhibiting his own brand of faith here; Faith in Science as a Religion.

There is no difference. He believes that Science will provide for him something which it hasn't accomplished, but he believes it nonetheless. It makes him no different than anyone of belief who finds solace in Deism of any stripe, to find solace in a similar manner.

Either way, what Mixels will then be prixy to - if that faith-based proclamation ever comes to fruition - is the HOW of life and death.

But he will still be utterly vacant as to why.

Quote from IMMensaMind : I bolded this to substantiate exactly what I've been saying. I'll also point out that Mixels is exhibiting his own brand of faith here; Faith in Science as a Religion. There is no difference. He believes that Science will provide for him something which it hasn't accomplished, but he believes it nonetheless. It makes him no different than anyone of belief who finds solace in Deism of any stripe, to find solace in a similar manner. Either way, what Mixels will then be prixy to - if that faith-based proclamation ever comes to fruition - is the HOW of life and death. But he will still be utterly vacant as to why.

I don't believe science will provide me with those answers. I assume it will, because that is something that very much interests biologists and technologists alike and because our ability to learn from observation has yet to come across any kind of permanent impasse, but since I am neither a biologist nor an engineer, I really don't care. Nice straw man, by the way. Do you still get crows? Who built it for you?

Edit: Why? Oh, you're in for a treat on this one: I don't care about that, either. (By the by, the question of "why" necessitates intent, which in this case necessitates a creator. Since I don't believe in a creator, I don't believe there is a "why" to life--at least not one that we don't create for ourselves.)

Quote from Homefrrie : I don't follow Science as a religion. I follow Science as a hobby, and believe that Science will continue to uncover facts about our universe. I don't have blind faith, but I do have faith. History has shown me that human advancement in Science has occurred, and I have faith that advancement will continue. That faith cannot be considered 'blind'.

I think you are in denial of exactly what your own faith means, and demands. There are those who believe in God, and go to Church, but are far from zealous. They, too, could call their persuasion a 'hobby', if they wish, but what it really is is an escape; a habit; a communal activity - whatever it is. The point is that they do it, motivated at least partially by trust in the act.

Just like you are with Science. It is your faith and religion. I think you're stuck on the eschatological definition of religion, when in point of fact it's unimportant upon what an individual's religion is based. What matters is solely what type of morays it supports.

If your belief system results in you being unable to stop other's stigmatization of a person of faith, I find it harmful. If your belief system renders you unable to support politicians who defend the right to free expression of religion through speech or practice, I find it harmful.

If you cannot understand that the concept of "separation of church and state" is a contrived position intended to attack free expression, I find it harmful. If you are so lightly afflicted with lack of caring as to manifest rudeness or disgust in those of an opposite view......I find it harmful.

And so on.

Quote : And in no way am I attempting to delegitimize anyones belief in God.

Good - except that you still manifest denial, because simply acting crude and snarky to those of faith is itself an attempt to delegitimize.

Do you support a public school offering an elective course on the Bible? Your answer really defines the veracity of your statement.

Quote : Like many others have said, we have the freedom to believe whatever we want. I am merely stating a hypothesis, which you chose to ignore.

My 10,000 words in this thread seem to bely your claim.

Quote : If/when we find other life forms, and they tell people how the universe was created, and present you with written history similar to our own in respect to Jesus, would you continue with your current beliefs, or would you possibly change your beliefs based on what that other life form considers true?

False Dichotomy - and not at all what I was arguing regardless. My argument would be supported by a Superior Intelligence arriving and announcing (with evidence) that they planted the seeds of life on this planet, and it became Man and all Things, thus substantianting the claims of the IDers.

Quote : I believe in what can presented me to as fact.

That is not "belief". That is knowledge. The implications of the difference is where the meat and potatoes of these arguments reside.

Quote : I believe in asteroids because they've landed on Earth. I believe in stellar objects because science has presented facts to prove they exist. I have FAITH that there are other forms of life outside of our galaxy, because probability tells me that faith is not without reason.

Then by that same law of probability, you'd have to support the notion of ID, as the claim is simply that there is an Intelligence which is capable of Creating All Things.

Because surely within an Infinity such a Being must exist. Right? Or have, in all your musings on probability, neatly compartmentalized the concept that other forms of life couldn't possibly involved a being of such a level of Superiority? Or One which could Lord over it all?

Quote : Fixed

Warped - thus: broken.

Quote from Mixels : I don't believe science will provide me with those answers. I assume it will, because that is something that very much interests biologists and technologists alike and because our ability to learn from observation has yet to come across any kind of permanent impasse, but since I am neither a biologist nor an engineer, I really don't care. Nice straw man, by the way. Do you still get crows? Who built it for you?

I need you to up the level of care in your argument. Read what I bolded and explain to me how it makes any sense at all that you deny believing Science will provide you with answers while simultaneously assuming it will.

Quote : Edit: Why? Oh, you're in for a treat on this one: I don't care about that, either. (By the by, the question of "why" necessitates intent, which in this case necessitates a creator. Since I don't believe in a creator, I don't believe there is a "why" to life--at least not one that we don't create for ourselves.)

You don't believe there's a "why" - I know that; it's been my contention. Do you ever wonder why a child has the capacity to ask that question, but you do not?

Being unable to ask why is the quintessential expression of closed-mindedness. It's such a hollow existence to operate with the premise that there is no reason for anything - because it follows that if you find no reason for anything, then there is no reason for you, either.

And no consequence; no limitations/taboos/etc. It results in the very breakdown of culture. I believe everyone who participates in society is affected by the morays of those surrounding them; they rub off. People who do not believe in God, and by extension do not believe in a purpose to everything, are still, to varying degrees, constricted/affected/influenced by the morays established by the remainder of their culture, most of whom do believe in God, and in Purpose. To the degree that they shed the manifestations of these morays aligns in exact proportion to the degree to which such individuals become a threat to those increasingly unlike them.

People who do not believe in God and attain power are the highest (lowest?) examples of such threats. People who do not believe in God and attain tyrannical power (read: outside of a Republic or Democracy - put in order of effective restraint of power) are the greatest threat. History is full of these: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.

It is my position that those in society who do not believe in a "why", but operate without threat to their fellow man, are living with internal contradictions. This can manifest itself in myriad ways, including bitterness and anger, or self-loathing, psychological problems, etc. Some strong people don't manifest at all. Rarely do they float through life without eventually displaying these problems.

It's those who do not believe in a purpose and operate without those internal contradictions that are truly capable of tremendous harm to others.

I don't expect you to understand what I just wrote. I mostly expressed it for those who do. You'll note that those who believe in God have not been antagonistic to those who don't. The reverse, clearly, isn't true.

This fits the explanation I've given above.

Quote from IMMensaMind : I need you to up the level of care in your argument. Read what I bolded and explain to me how it makes any sense at all that you deny believing Science will provide you with answers while simultaneously assuming it will.

I don't know that you're going to get anywhere. Mixels did the same thing about assigning responsibility to God for Adam and Eve's actions, several times.