Creation vs. Evolution
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
 |
|
Page 33 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Aleatoric
Reply #642 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:32 PM
Reply #642 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:32 PM
Kona,
Even as one might agree that such things happen, they are not a prima facie argument for the existence of God. They could simply be due to a mechanism we haven't detected yet.
*I* believe that God has a hand in them, but that isn't proof.
Even if we could actually *prove* (to everyone's satisfaction) that God does indeed exist, that would still not justify imposing any default or defacto religion upon everyone (especially at the level of government).
Even as one might agree that such things happen, they are not a prima facie argument for the existence of God. They could simply be due to a mechanism we haven't detected yet.
*I* believe that God has a hand in them, but that isn't proof.
Even if we could actually *prove* (to everyone's satisfaction) that God does indeed exist, that would still not justify imposing any default or defacto religion upon everyone (especially at the level of government).
kona0197
Reply #643 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:32 PM
Reply #643 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:32 PM
Oh ye all of little or NO faith... I give up on you all but I will still pray for ya!
kona0197
Reply #644 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:33 PM
Reply #644 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:33 PM
Oh ye all of little or NO faith... I give up on you all but I will still pray for ya!
bakerstreet
Reply #645 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:46 PM
Reply #645 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:46 PM
Motion said: "How can anybody, who wishes to be thought of as sane, believe in ghosts and goblins and all other order of silly, spooky things like gods and devils."
For the same reason Leucippus of Miletus theorized the atom in 440 BC, before there was any reasonable way of proving the idea. A black hole, what a silly idea, right? Nothing but a bit of fuzzy math and imagination? I'm sure children in the early-mid 20th century got stern talking-to by mature people like Motion for all their alien/outer space/death ray nonsense. We can all be grateful to the Soviets for scaring some imagination into the staid western hemisphere. We are too mature for such, so lets just put it out of our mind until someone else does it first and waggles their Sputnik in our face.
Thank God people don't always 'outgrow' the ability to imagine things that are possible, however improbable ( Doyle is your friend...). Anyone who claims to have any clue about philosophy and science should know, to a profound degree, that you can't *disprove* the existence of anything. Unless you have a model of the entire Universe, complete to the finest point, you can't say there isn't a God. By doing so you are making the same sort of assumption as someone who says he is a tall guy with a big white beard. You assume that somehow your experience is definitive on the subject.
Atheism isn't a science, it is a belief, no different than anything else. It relies on faith, and hides behind a veil of 'science'. You have the faith that there will never be any evidence of a God, either uncovered from the past or developed in the future... unless you can see into the future? This is something that you can't *know*, any more than you can know if there is life on other planets.
The most any honest anyone can be is that they don't know if there is a God or not, since their experience doesn't disprove the existence of such. They can, of course, say that they BELIEVE that their isn't a God, but I find that atheists don't like to bandy about with that sort of word, and much prefer to expound their ideals as though they were somehow scientific fact.
Don't fall into the trap that the Amazing Randy's of the world find themselves in, or you will find yourself poo-pooing anything that takes imagination and faith to achieve. I am acquainted with hard-core Skeptics; fraternal ones, even, and I don't envy them. Most everything we touch and use these days can be traced back to an innovation made by someone who was laughed at for what they were trying to do.
I would much rather be a sheepish unbeliever that helps Noah pack for his trip and stays behind to drown than the guy that stood around laughing at him. At least you drown with a little self-respect.
For the same reason Leucippus of Miletus theorized the atom in 440 BC, before there was any reasonable way of proving the idea. A black hole, what a silly idea, right? Nothing but a bit of fuzzy math and imagination? I'm sure children in the early-mid 20th century got stern talking-to by mature people like Motion for all their alien/outer space/death ray nonsense. We can all be grateful to the Soviets for scaring some imagination into the staid western hemisphere. We are too mature for such, so lets just put it out of our mind until someone else does it first and waggles their Sputnik in our face.
Thank God people don't always 'outgrow' the ability to imagine things that are possible, however improbable ( Doyle is your friend...). Anyone who claims to have any clue about philosophy and science should know, to a profound degree, that you can't *disprove* the existence of anything. Unless you have a model of the entire Universe, complete to the finest point, you can't say there isn't a God. By doing so you are making the same sort of assumption as someone who says he is a tall guy with a big white beard. You assume that somehow your experience is definitive on the subject.
Atheism isn't a science, it is a belief, no different than anything else. It relies on faith, and hides behind a veil of 'science'. You have the faith that there will never be any evidence of a God, either uncovered from the past or developed in the future... unless you can see into the future? This is something that you can't *know*, any more than you can know if there is life on other planets.
The most any honest anyone can be is that they don't know if there is a God or not, since their experience doesn't disprove the existence of such. They can, of course, say that they BELIEVE that their isn't a God, but I find that atheists don't like to bandy about with that sort of word, and much prefer to expound their ideals as though they were somehow scientific fact.
Don't fall into the trap that the Amazing Randy's of the world find themselves in, or you will find yourself poo-pooing anything that takes imagination and faith to achieve. I am acquainted with hard-core Skeptics; fraternal ones, even, and I don't envy them. Most everything we touch and use these days can be traced back to an innovation made by someone who was laughed at for what they were trying to do.
I would much rather be a sheepish unbeliever that helps Noah pack for his trip and stays behind to drown than the guy that stood around laughing at him. At least you drown with a little self-respect.
Jafo
Reply #646 Monday, October 20, 2003 6:52 PM
Reply #646 Monday, October 20, 2003 6:52 PM
Here's a thought....
It's quite 'logical' to contend that God is a creation of man...an entity or concept to help man comprehend his being/role/existence.
If there were no 'Man' it would follow there was no 'God'.
Worse still to ponder.....does Man actually have the capacity to create/construct/materialize something through sheer thought/emotion/desire?
It is not a case of 'I think, therefore I am'....but actually 'I think, therefore God IS'.
My issue with established, organized Religions is that the 'God' created by/for them was another's interpretation/imagination, not mine, with an 'RTFM' of ambiguous jibberish and a theology too closely linked with the justification of war, segregation and discrimination.
I'll stick wiff me own God that I thunk up to help me through the daze....
UBoB
Reply #647 Monday, October 20, 2003 7:06 PM
Reply #647 Monday, October 20, 2003 7:06 PM
I've always been a proponent of logical thought rather than fantastical thought. That does not mean I do not encourage and applaude progressive and creative thought. I just can't reconcile God or religion as either progressive or creative.
Being more a logical than an emotional person I tend to believe in logical philosophies such as Occam's razor. Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.
Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, morality and existence, which is self containing and in itself has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, morality, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world.
Being more a logical than an emotional person I tend to believe in logical philosophies such as Occam's razor. Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.
Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, morality and existence, which is self containing and in itself has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, morality, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world.
paxx
Reply #648 Monday, October 20, 2003 7:30 PM
Reply #648 Monday, October 20, 2003 7:30 PM
Bakerstreet, nice to see take part of our conversations again. 
Having said that, I've said it before and repeat it: although I don't think that there is a God, I don't totally reject the fact that I may be wrong. There may be a God, but I don't think there is one. Or worse, there may HAVE BEEN one, and maybe he left by now or is dead. Or maybe there WILL BE a God and he sometimes travel in time to pay us a vist. I don't know.
But, what I am am very much against, is any organised religion. I disagree with blind faith. I urge every believer to think by himself and not follow the words of somebody who's trying to manipulate him. Have faith, but have your OWN faith.
UBoB
Reply #649 Monday, October 20, 2003 7:45 PM
Reply #649 Monday, October 20, 2003 7:45 PM
I would like to state further that although I do not believe there is a god that does not mean I don't respect many of the beliefs of Christians. Having been unwillingly baptized one myself and having been made to attend Catholic schools and sunday church services until I was in my teens I did learn quite a bit about it. I've read the bible cover to cover at least ten times, which is probably at least eleven times more than most people disussing this here.
The person from which Christians take their name gets all of my respect. I can't think of a life more worth emulating. I can't think of anyone else I'd rather learn many of life's lessons from. But that doesn't mean I think that he was the son of God, or is in any way a god himself. A great teacher and thinker, yes, but I can't raise him to the stature of god.
The person from which Christians take their name gets all of my respect. I can't think of a life more worth emulating. I can't think of anyone else I'd rather learn many of life's lessons from. But that doesn't mean I think that he was the son of God, or is in any way a god himself. A great teacher and thinker, yes, but I can't raise him to the stature of god.
bakerstreet
Reply #650 Monday, October 20, 2003 8:07 PM
Reply #650 Monday, October 20, 2003 8:07 PM
No. That is a misuse of Occam's razor.
Occam's Razor implies a working understanding of the reality of something. If the curtains move, and I know there is a draft, then trying to explain it as a ghost is counter to the practice. If I have no knowledge of 'draft' then the razor is no help. The draft explanation does not, however, disprove the existence of ghosts, only that particular instance of the belief. If you try to make such a blanket statement, you have discarded Occam's Razor yourself.
William of Occam, I might add, believed in God " by authority and reason." His 'razor' will cut differently depending on the common sense of who is holding it, so it is *not* an objective tool. A Creationist will accuse a Evolutionist of jumping through hoops to make his point, when there is a more simple explanation ( to him ). The personal knowledge of the wielder is what Occam's razor uses to debunk, and knowledge is subjective, if for no other reason than our inability to see what will be known in the future.
If Occam's Razor was the gold standard, then anything outside our understanding would never be investigated beyond assumption. Assumption is not science.
Motion said:
"Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?"
It would be unwise to cite Occam's Razor and Physics in the same breath, considering 99.9% of all modern physics flew in the face of the 'most simple explanation' at the time it was theorized. Wanna talk about the readily apparent sensibility of quantum mechanics? Even basic Physics flies in the face of what a average person would consider 'common sense'. Newton's first law of motion as an example:
"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."
Would that have been "the most simple explanation with a few explanatory premises" to someone in 1687, especially coming from someone who had recently suffered a mental breakdown?
. Hell no, I roll something, it eventually stops. Occam's Razor is one tool in a kit, and completely at the mercy of the understanding of the wielder. Fortunately, people look beyond the simplest explanation, and expect to find things that defy what we NOW call 'common sense'. In this way 'common sense' is revised over time. Bring your razor and go ask a physicist what came before the big bang.
God is one of these things that some people completely, irresponsibly, disavow the possibility of, based only on the small wedge of understanding they have. Doesn't matter that their model of the universe is impossibly incomplete, they still somehow *know* that there isn't a God in there anywhere. Pretty illogical, if you ask me.
Occam's Razor implies a working understanding of the reality of something. If the curtains move, and I know there is a draft, then trying to explain it as a ghost is counter to the practice. If I have no knowledge of 'draft' then the razor is no help. The draft explanation does not, however, disprove the existence of ghosts, only that particular instance of the belief. If you try to make such a blanket statement, you have discarded Occam's Razor yourself.
William of Occam, I might add, believed in God " by authority and reason." His 'razor' will cut differently depending on the common sense of who is holding it, so it is *not* an objective tool. A Creationist will accuse a Evolutionist of jumping through hoops to make his point, when there is a more simple explanation ( to him ). The personal knowledge of the wielder is what Occam's razor uses to debunk, and knowledge is subjective, if for no other reason than our inability to see what will be known in the future.
If Occam's Razor was the gold standard, then anything outside our understanding would never be investigated beyond assumption. Assumption is not science.
Motion said:
"Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?"
It would be unwise to cite Occam's Razor and Physics in the same breath, considering 99.9% of all modern physics flew in the face of the 'most simple explanation' at the time it was theorized. Wanna talk about the readily apparent sensibility of quantum mechanics? Even basic Physics flies in the face of what a average person would consider 'common sense'. Newton's first law of motion as an example:
"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."
Would that have been "the most simple explanation with a few explanatory premises" to someone in 1687, especially coming from someone who had recently suffered a mental breakdown?
. Hell no, I roll something, it eventually stops. Occam's Razor is one tool in a kit, and completely at the mercy of the understanding of the wielder. Fortunately, people look beyond the simplest explanation, and expect to find things that defy what we NOW call 'common sense'. In this way 'common sense' is revised over time. Bring your razor and go ask a physicist what came before the big bang.God is one of these things that some people completely, irresponsibly, disavow the possibility of, based only on the small wedge of understanding they have. Doesn't matter that their model of the universe is impossibly incomplete, they still somehow *know* that there isn't a God in there anywhere. Pretty illogical, if you ask me.
bakerstreet
Reply #651 Monday, October 20, 2003 8:19 PM
Reply #651 Monday, October 20, 2003 8:19 PM
thanks paxx. Couldn't resist.
I have to say that my own philosophy also keeps me at odds with organized religion. There is a bit too much skeptic in me to accept 'revelation', so I am left to look at religion as history and take what parts my 'soul' decides is 'truth'. Even when 'history is written by the victors', truth emerges in the fine detail, or in the overall picture when viewed from a distance. I believe truth cannot be hidden, only slightly obscured. I find God 'apparent' in my perception of the universe, and therefore my razor cuts differently than motion's. It may seem odd to both deny the validity of a source, and yet form one's beliefs based upon it, but we do the same thing every time we read the newspaper. Our perception is all we have.
I don't agree with Kona on most of what he says, and I don't agree with his opposition either, but I wish we could all agree that we really don't *know* anything, and atheists and fundamentalists alike are leaning on faith in their perception of the world. I respect motion, and paxx, and Kona, but I think something as important as one's spiritual life, or lack thereof, requires a bit more elasticity.
I have to say that my own philosophy also keeps me at odds with organized religion. There is a bit too much skeptic in me to accept 'revelation', so I am left to look at religion as history and take what parts my 'soul' decides is 'truth'. Even when 'history is written by the victors', truth emerges in the fine detail, or in the overall picture when viewed from a distance. I believe truth cannot be hidden, only slightly obscured. I find God 'apparent' in my perception of the universe, and therefore my razor cuts differently than motion's. It may seem odd to both deny the validity of a source, and yet form one's beliefs based upon it, but we do the same thing every time we read the newspaper. Our perception is all we have.
I don't agree with Kona on most of what he says, and I don't agree with his opposition either, but I wish we could all agree that we really don't *know* anything, and atheists and fundamentalists alike are leaning on faith in their perception of the world. I respect motion, and paxx, and Kona, but I think something as important as one's spiritual life, or lack thereof, requires a bit more elasticity.
IPlural
Reply #652 Monday, October 20, 2003 8:56 PM
Reply #652 Monday, October 20, 2003 8:56 PM
You know, Jafo hit my nail right on the head with his hammer 
I know it was only a movie, but I think that if anything I would follow along with the thoughts and feelings of it and the verses in *Stigmatta*
Now if I was to be a believer as some would think all must, it would be the above and not some form mail style of dogma stuffed down my throat and in my ears by someone who lands on their knees to kiss some other Humans ring as was the norm of my family.
I know it was only a movie, but I think that if anything I would follow along with the thoughts and feelings of it and the verses in *Stigmatta*
| "The kingdom of God is inside you. And all around you. Not in buildings made from wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me." |
Now if I was to be a believer as some would think all must, it would be the above and not some form mail style of dogma stuffed down my throat and in my ears by someone who lands on their knees to kiss some other Humans ring as was the norm of my family.
kona0197
Reply #653 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:20 PM
The modern day Jews believe he wasn't the Son of God. therefore that is where the problem lies. he was and is the Son of God.
I do not have blind faith.
Reply #653 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:20 PM
| The person from which Christians take their name gets all of my respect. I can't think of a life more worth emulating. I can't think of anyone else I'd rather learn many of life's lessons from. But that doesn't mean I think that he was the son of God, or is in any way a god himself. A great teacher and thinker, yes, but I can't raise him to the stature of god. |
The modern day Jews believe he wasn't the Son of God. therefore that is where the problem lies. he was and is the Son of God.
I do not have blind faith.
UBoB
Reply #654 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:30 PM
Careful now, starting to sound anti-semitic. Bear in mind that I have a Jewish wife. Bear in mind that I become just like a bear when my wife is attacked. Also bear in mind that there are members of the Jewish faith right here at WC. Just try and keep the discussion non-denominational and I will endeavor to do the same.
Reply #654 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:30 PM
| The modern day Jews believe he wasn't the Son of God. therefore that is where the problem lies. he was and is the Son of God. |
Careful now, starting to sound anti-semitic. Bear in mind that I have a Jewish wife. Bear in mind that I become just like a bear when my wife is attacked. Also bear in mind that there are members of the Jewish faith right here at WC. Just try and keep the discussion non-denominational and I will endeavor to do the same.
kona0197
Reply #655 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:33 PM
Reply #655 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:33 PM
The statement I made had nothing to do with a personal attack, sorry.
If we are going to get into that frame of mind, I feel attacked because some of you said you dispise organized religion and that there is no God.
If we are going to get into that frame of mind, I feel attacked because some of you said you dispise organized religion and that there is no God.
Aleatoric
Reply #656 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:49 PM
Not only just from a movie, but one of the verses of the coptic gospels of Thomas, ostensibly an apostle of Jesus.
And very much in line with my particular views. I have very little doubt that God does exist. I also have very little doubt that the texts and dogma of organized religion have only a small part of the answer.
I'm fascinated by this type of discussion, and it's been remarkably well argued by the participants here. To readdress an earlier argument, the disparate views and discussion points presented here make an overwhelming case against any established form of religion. If we existed under almost *any* established religion, odds are a discussion of this sort would be branded as heresy or blasphemy. If one cannot question (and challenge) their beliefs (or the beliefs handed down to them), then those beliefs have no chance at all to grow. Nor would we have the tools with which to grow out of any views that are incomplete or inaccurate.
Reply #656 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:49 PM
| "The kingdom of God is inside you. And all around you. Not in buildings made from wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me." |
Not only just from a movie, but one of the verses of the coptic gospels of Thomas, ostensibly an apostle of Jesus.
And very much in line with my particular views. I have very little doubt that God does exist. I also have very little doubt that the texts and dogma of organized religion have only a small part of the answer.
I'm fascinated by this type of discussion, and it's been remarkably well argued by the participants here
. To readdress an earlier argument, the disparate views and discussion points presented here make an overwhelming case against any established form of religion. If we existed under almost *any* established religion, odds are a discussion of this sort would be branded as heresy or blasphemy. If one cannot question (and challenge) their beliefs (or the beliefs handed down to them), then those beliefs have no chance at all to grow. Nor would we have the tools with which to grow out of any views that are incomplete or inaccurate.
Jafo
Reply #657 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:51 PM
Reply #657 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:51 PM
Kona....saying 'there is no God' is not discriminatory...it is an opinion. It's also important to note that Kona's statement was not anti-semitic, either.
The word is 'despise'....and 'organized religions' would be inclusive, not exclusive, so again there is no 'attack' or discrimination/differentiation.
kona0197
Reply #658 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:56 PM
Reply #658 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:56 PM
I just do not like people taking what I said as a attack just because I mentioned The jews (I have no problem with them by the way)
I was just quoteing a news article anyways.
Sorry motion if I upset you. I was by no means trying to attack you or make fun of you.
I was just quoteing a news article anyways.
Sorry motion if I upset you. I was by no means trying to attack you or make fun of you.
Jafo
Reply #659 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:57 PM
Reply #659 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:57 PM
Aleatoric....the survivability of this thread and topic is not a result of 'Established Religions' but is in spite of them. It's the modern scepticism towards religion of all strains that enables free thought. It is safe to presume that were one particular religion autonomous free thought would be its first victim...
kona0197
Reply #660 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:59 PM
Reply #660 Monday, October 20, 2003 9:59 PM
Jafo.. God gave us FREE WILL to not believe in him. He shouldn't have done that. That way we would all believe!
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 33 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #641 Monday, October 20, 2003 5:24 PM
I refer you to my answer in post #638
Oh, and I stopped smoking cold turkey. It was a result of a heart attack and my own willpower.
And please don't tell me the heart attack was a sign from God. The only thing it was a sign for was that I was smoking too many cigarettes and eating too much fatty foods.