|
God and Evolution.. (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Bondor |
http://www.dc.uba.ar/people/profesores/becher/ns.html i stole this from another thread... i think it ties in some how ... who knows maybe im just crazy... i think it proves my point though debating this issue is pointless, because you can reason yourself around anything to prove or disprove your point.
...or im loony
oh well |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'm curious as to why some people think that belief in God automatically implies belief in Creationism. I mean, what's wrong with saying that God (whoever or whatever that is) was watching the Earth throughout history and maybe decided to take a particular interest in our species?
The article mentions that some teachers want to bring Creationism to the classroom in order to pave the way for discussions about God. I wonder if this is true in the general sense - hundreds of years ago, people didn't understand living phenomena too well, so Creationism would have been a great vehicle to move religion, providing "answers" to the masses.
Belief in God doesn't necessarily imply belief that "he" created everything... there are other religions out there that believe in God but don't tell any tall tales about the Origin of the Universe or the Fall of Man or the Son of God. I see Creationism used more often as a tool to convince people that their God exists, and I can see why they'd want to defend it - after all, how else could you "prove" to people that God exists and wants you to come to church every Sunday and donate $50 to your priest? |
Or indeed, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then could he not have created the laws of science and set actions in force at the start of the universe such that life would develop as it did, via evolution? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
or maybe he said "rm -f *" way back when and then rebooted the universe (aka big bang) ;) |
LOL, for some reason I find that one very funny.
| quote: | Originally posted by Bondor
http://www.dc.uba.ar/people/profesores/becher/ns.html i stole this from another thread... i think it ties in some how ... who knows maybe im just crazy... i think it proves my point though debating this issue is pointless, because you can reason yourself around anything to prove or disprove your point. |
Yes, indeed you stole it from me in another thread. :p I don't really think it ties in directly, it's just an interesting concept that shows how we don't possess the mathematical concepts to describe certain phenomena, as is often the case with scientific concepts. It's not the only thing that we haven't been able to figure out - try, for example, to integrate the normal (Gaussian) curve mathematically.
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Or indeed, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then could he not have created the laws of science |
The laws are just there, so I'd have to say no to that.
| quote: | | ...and set actions in force at the start of the universe such that life would develop as it did, via evolution? |
That is something that many Deists and Agnostics entertain the possibility of, so I would say that perhaps it did happen that way, although there's no evidence to prove it. Also, it wouldn't necessarily require omniscience or omnipotence, just highly advanced knowledge and technology. |
|
|
| NomadaNare |
Everything has something to say and here's my two cents.
I've been exposed to many different religions, from science of the mind which believes that god is a a manifestation of the mind that we control with our thinking (go figure), to intense gospel baptists with the singing and shouting and sermons. What i've come up with is that if there is a god, he's doing a good ing job cuz we havent completely destroyed ourselves yet and if not it doesnt really matter because people are gonna believe what they want to anyway. Saying there is or isnt a god isnt going to make you a genius cuz i really dont think anyone cares. As for myself, I do beleive there is some guy up there chillin and laughing his ass off at us and even though i have no set religion i try to do a little bit of everything. O and one more thing: you should always be a good person. You know whats right and wrong. Even if there is no god and we all just wasted enormous amounts of time, just be a good person for yourself. It feels good.:gsmile: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by NomadaNare
O and one more thing: you should always be a good person. You know whats right and wrong. Even if there is no god and we all just wasted enormous amounts of time, just be a good person for yourself. It feels good.:gsmile: |
As do most forms of masturbation, no? |
|
|
| Bondor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
As do most forms of masturbation, no? |
i think we should end this thread on that good note |
|
|
| montie |
Damn, I get busy and take a break from the boards and this thread explodes. Took me an hour to catch up.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Even when the argument is about God or Hitler? :p
Oh and about that montie, I have a lot of questions about the story of Adam and Eve as well. Among them:
- Why would Adam want a companion, when he was technically a hermaphrodite and had no concept of man or woman?
- Why would God create Eve from Adam's rib, when he was an all-powerful being that could have created her instantly from dust?
- Having given Adam and Eve the gift of Free Will, what was the purpose of making that tree? Simply to prove that they truly did have Free Will? If so, why the need for extravagance, why not just pick an ordinary "placebo" apple tree and watch the results?
- How could Adam and Eve have understood that it would be wrong to disobey God's orders, prior to them having any knowledge of what right or wrong was? Following that, how could God have logically expected them to obey those orders?
- According to the story, Adam and Eve hide their privates in fig leaves after discovering right and wrong. Considering that they were the only two humans on the planet and that clothes hadn't been invented yet, how was their nakedness shameful?
- Where was the Garden of Eden - surely we must have some vague info on its geographical location?
- Doesn't an eternity of damnation for all humanity seem a bit harsh when they didn't understand the rule they were breaking? How can God call himself forgiving under these circumstances?
- Through what medium did God communicate with Adam and Eve?
- Why should we be forever grateful to a God that has punished us for all eternity because of the mistakes our 50,000-year-old ancestors made? |
anyway, Diginut you posted this awhile ago and since I can't answer those all those questions from the Catholic perspective (Its been a couple years since I took theology), I sent them to one of my old teachers who is a theologan and monk and this is his response...
:lots of these questions are based on trying to read Genesis 2-4 in a historical mode
: thats basically not possible.
: the second creation account in genesis is an ancient myth that tries to make sense of the known reality of sin in the world.
dombedeprice: sin is the historical reality, the story in genesis is an attempt to describe how that reality came to be.
: therefore it has inconistencies and things which don't make sense in a strictly historical sense.
: Only protestant fundamentalist believe that genesis represents actual history.
: consider for instance, the fact that the first account of creation and the second account are different.
dombedeprice: genesis 1 was written by a different author than genesis 2-3.
: your last three questions are more interesting.
: first, the whole purpose of the genesis story is that God created all things from nothing. He is the creator of all things, time and space included.
: secondly, sin is a reality however you want to explain it. Its something which comes from us the creature and keeps us from fully understanding God our creator. God doesn't sit around in heaven looking for opportunities to punish us.
: our sins are the thing that causes us to see God as more and more distant. It is actually an illusion. God is just as close to us as he always has been. We are the ones who have turned away from him.
dombedeprice: the key text to understanding god's attitude toward us after the fall is in genesis 3:15. this is called the proto-evangelium
: even at the very moment of the fall, God is already working out a way to make things better again.
: Jesus is the offspring that Gen. 3:15 is talking about, which is one of the reasons that Mary is called the New Eve.
thought that would also be interesting for all the christians out there who hold onto creationism.
anyway theres alot i want to respond to but i'm tired and need to go to sleep.
but
| quote: | Originally posted by moth
Chew on this:
When you are playing golf, you will look at the slopes around the path to the whole, and base how you hit the ball on those slopes to get your desired outcome. Say something out there did want to create the universe, with no mental limitations could you not agree that every desired event for all time could be calculated down to an interaction of subatomic particles?
Would you agree that if you knew the exact stage of everything in the universe, you could predict every single event to come for all time? Some of these ideas are hard to comprehend. In simpler terms, you push a ball toward another ball straight on, on a frictionless surface, no angle of incline, air resistance ignored, you know exactly what is going to happen to the other ball when they come in contact. If the conditions never change, and the ball is always rolled the exact same, the result will never change. They ways an organism react due to a certain stimulus are vastly complex and are based one thousands of conditions. BUT, could you not agree it can be calculated? Every single thing in the universe can be traced back to its origin through calculation, possibly converging on a single point in time and space, to a single event on a molecular level?
Such an event is 'god'.
|
excellent point. thats an idea of god i have been thinking about quite a bit. not sure if i necesarily believe in predetermination tho.
one of the concepts i consider as a god as the summation of all particles in the universe or all matter. just as we are made up of cells and particles and molecules and atoms and whatever, we are just a small particle which help make up the major being which is god. and the "big bang" was god creating itself. we are just of gods existance.
too tired to give a good thought out explanation or arguement now tho. |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bondor
i think we should end this thread on that good note |
haha
would be great but...
noo this thread can't die |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
...
|
Yes, those stories do become slightly more credible when you choose to not take them literally. However, I want to outline the difference between viewing them to be a metaphor, and claiming them to be a metaphor while quoting from them as though they actually happened. See, the drama in those stories causes "suspension of disbelief", much like watching a well-acted movie or play, and certain people, while they claim not to believe the story in its literal sense, still think of it that way.
I'd also like to point out that if you're willing to accept the Fall of Man as a parable, you should probably be willing to accept the parts about Jesus as parables too. Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary with some sort of alien baby who later turned out to have quasi-divine powers. It would make more sense to believe, perhaps, that he was an ordinary man who did great things for society but was still persecuted. Although I'd hesitate to believe even that - where's the proof of any of this?
The last part of your reply, while it may conveniently answer the questions I posed to a sufficient extent for devout Christians, is still in essence religious dogma and spoonfed precepts. I'm okay with you believing it, but there's no way I will without a lot of corroborating evidence. |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Yes, those stories do become slightly more credible when you choose to not take them literally. However, I want to outline the difference between viewing them to be a metaphor, and claiming them to be a metaphor while quoting from them as though they actually happened. See, the drama in those stories causes "suspension of disbelief", much like watching a well-acted movie or play, and certain people, while they claim not to believe the story in its literal sense, still think of it that way.
|
I'm not sure exactly what your saying here. Do you mean that people look at these like some sort of farytale which tries to explain the history of man or of mankinds condition, such as like a movie like the Matrix does?
| quote: |
I'd also like to point out that if you're willing to accept the Fall of Man as a parable, you should probably be willing to accept the parts about Jesus as parables too. Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary with some sort of alien baby who later turned out to have quasi-divine powers. It would make more sense to believe, perhaps, that he was an ordinary man who did great things for society but was still persecuted. Although I'd hesitate to believe even that - where's the proof of any of this?
|
You're quite right, it is very difficult to explain how mary was mysteriously impregnated and that Jesus had some sort of divine powers. There is no proof to justify or support any of this. Just as there is no proof to support the genesis story. Such is the area where people who are religous (at least in this case Catholics) put their faith. Blind as it may be.
But to your points about Jesus existing and being persecuted. There is much evidence from many other sources besides the Bible that Jesus did exist. It only makes sense from a historical perspective that someone started the break from judaism and thus began christianity. Jesus may have done great things for society but that didn't mean everyone loved him. Most jews hated him because he was a heretic. He broke their moral code by doing work on Sundays and by befriending "sinners" such as the prostitute Mary Magdelen. He made a point to support the rejects of society and for this he was scorned. He also threw a fit inside the Temple and ranted and raved about how the Hebrews had gone astray. The list of reasons that he was hated goes on and on.
He can also be thought of as what a cult leader is today. He befriended the weak and rejected and made them his followers, and showed them a new religon. I don't know any cult leaders that are well respected by society in general.
| quote: |
The last part of your reply, while it may conveniently answer the questions I posed to a sufficient extent for devout Christians, is still in essence religious dogma and spoonfed precepts. I'm okay with you believing it, but there's no way I will without a lot of corroborating evidence. |
Haha I'm glad "You're OK with me believing it" that makes me feel alot better about myself :D but I never said I actually did belive it. Its just a conception of God I have thought about. I don't know what I believe. I have many ideas which are ever changing. |
|
|
| sherman |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'd also like to point out that if you're willing to accept the Fall of Man as a parable, you should probably be willing to accept the parts about Jesus as parables too. Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary with some sort of alien baby who later turned out to have quasi-divine powers. It would make more sense to believe, perhaps, that he was an ordinary man who did great things for society but was still persecuted. Although I'd hesitate to believe even that - where's the proof of any of this?
|
I would just like to point out the differences between the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament make a big difference in how they can be percieved. The Old Testament was written however many thousands of thousands of years ago, and so its origins and actual meaning cannot be really proven or disproven at this point in time. However, the New Testament, where Jesus first appears, can be considered quite reliable and factual. There are something like 25,000 early manuscripts (dating from the first few centuries A.D.) of the New Testament existing today, the oldest from about 100 A.D. from Egypt, hundreds of miles from Asia minor where the New Testament is believed to have been written. Compare these with similar works written at the time, such as the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote The Annals of Rome around 116 A.D. The earliest surviving copy of this is from A.D. 850, over 700 years later, and yet this is accepted as quite historically accurate.
I know that now you will bring in the question of the reliablilty of the first manuscripts of the New Testament and how it should matter if there are thousands of existing copies of it today if the whole thing was based on a made up story of Jesus. I could understand this if the people writing the new Testament were gaining something personally for spreading the story of Jesus. I will point out, however, that the disciples of Jesus that were spreading Christianity and writing the books of the New Testament had much to lose and nothing to gain. They were persecuted for their beliefs and were hated by most everybody for what they were doing, and lived their lives on the road, with hardly any personal posessions and were eventually tortured and killed for their beliefs. Why would these people go through all this pain and suffering for a lie they made up? It just doesn't make any sense if you think about it.
One last thing, you might be thinking about how over time the manuscripts might be misread and miscopied after thousands and thousands of copyings and recopyings. This is also another common misconception. The thousands of copies spread across a quite large area including Europe, Asia, and some of the norhtern parts of Africa all match up with each other almost word for word, with only small mistakes such as word placement that don't change any of the meanings of the sentences. So, considering all of this, the New Testament is quite historically accurate. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Let's be honest here - it's pretty hard to swallow that God asexually impregnated Mary ... |
The Orthodox Church does not believe in the immaculate conception... At least not in the same sense that the Western Church does. I think it stems back to differing views on original sin. |
|
|
|
|
