Evolution and Christianity
The majority of people today think that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Many unbelievers think that science has proved Christianity “wrong”, and consequently just as many Christians refuse to believe in evolution, even though it is taught to their kids in school. Amazingly, both parties are blind to the facts: evolution and Christianity are remarkably harmonious.
In what follows, we will show Christians how to understand evolution and show unbelievers why Christianity is a rational and logical modern day religion.
When we look at the scientific theory of evolution alongside the “7 Days” creation story in Genesis we see that they are very similar. First of all, there is no need to interpret the “7 Days” as literal days. Everyone who reads their Bible knows you very often read it allegorically. Which makes sense because to read allegorically is to read spiritually; i.e. to find the meaning behind the words. Both evolution and the Bible show us that the universe evolves towards higher forms of life, meaning it moves towards God, who is life.
Let’s begin.
At the very beginning, as Science tells us, a tiny ‘singularity’ exploded and the universe came into being with a magnificent bang. The “Big Bang” was the beginning of time and space. Genesis agrees, saying that on the first day “God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light” (Genesis 1: 3).
Scientists tell us that millions of years later, the earth was formed by probably rolling out of our sun, and began spinning around the star. The earth was hot for a long time, but over millions of years a hospitable atmosphere was eventually formed, as rains fell upon the earth creating rivers, lakes, and oceans. On the third day God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear" (Genesis 1: 9). The earth was now a water-bearing planet, and was ripe to give fruit.
Before long (or indeed, after a very long time) the very first forms of life appeared on earth. It was very simple life; bacteria life. Over the course of millions and millions of years, this bacteria life had evolved into a more complex thriving plant kingdom. On the third day God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." (Genesis 1: 11).
Then evolution tells us that millions of year’s later, life advanced into even higher forms, and all sorts of animal species appeared on the earth. On the fifth day God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky" and "creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." (Genesis 1: 20 – 24).
Finally (200,000 years ago) evolution tells us that Homo sapiens, persons like you and me, appeared into this world. On the sixth day God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” and “in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1: 26 – 27). Last, according to the time scale of both evolution and the Bible, human beings came into existence, the most intelligent and sophisticated of all life forms to date.
So we see that evolution is actually found in the very first page of the Bible. I often wonder why so many fail to see that. Christians should take pride that evolution is found in the Bible because it shows the genius of the author of Genesis, who, despite living three thousand years ago, shows remarkable insight into the creation of the world.
And we also see that both Scriptures and evolution show that the earth evolved toward higher forms of life: from stars, to plants, to animals, to humans. The universe definitely evolves towards more consciousness and awareness. Stars cannot be considered alive, but plants are alive. Animals are more alive (conscious) than plants, as evidenced by their wide range of instinct and spontaneity. Human beings are even more alive (more conscious) than animals: we can travel into space, and unlock the mysteries of the atom.
And yet the fundamental question that evolution poses for us is: how did all of life, including persons like you and me, evolve from that tiny “singularity” so long ago?
And it is precisely this question that Christianity answers more satisfactorily than atheism or agnosticism. The most popular answer by atheism and agnosticism is that it happened “by chance.” To me, that is intellectually unsatisfying, for science has revealed to us that there are determined reasons for everything in the universe. Furthermore, physics tells us that there are causes and effects, and that an effect must equal its cause. This means that if life (the effect) appears in the universe, it is because it was present in the very beginning (the cause). And this is what Christianity (and Islam and Judaism, for that matter) maintain: that God (who is life) is the First Cause – the reason life ever appeared in the universe at all. Thus, despite popular belief, an evolution towards higher forms of life is the clearest evidence for the existence of God.
Now, of course, atheists and agnostics might say they “don’t know” how life and persons appeared in the universe, which is a fair enough answer, but it is still not more logical than the Christian answer. Whereas atheism and agnosticism lack a proper general interpretation of the universe, Christians can at least explain the physics of evolution.
Finally, I would like to point out to Christians what evolution means for their belief about heaven and the resurrection. Because the universe moves towards higher forms of life and consciousness, and God is life and consciousness, we see that what is actually happening is that God is uniting the universe to Himself. This is why the universe moves towards higher forms of life and consciousness: God is attracting it. Over millions of years, God has lifted from the depths of nothing the magnificent living structure of the biosphere, with the intention of uniting it to Himself. “My Father is at work till now, and so am I” (John 5: 17). This simply means that the end of evolution (of which humanity is at the forefront) is what Christians know as the “resurrection,” or “heaven;” when God is “all in all.”
Christians need not be afraid of science because science is a search for truth and God is truth. Christians should look to science for answers about their faith. Christians can be comforted by the fact that their faith is logical and rational. Furthermore, when a Christian does not trust science, they thereby close the door on potential people who might be interested in Christianity but cannotaccept a faith that distrusts science. Yes, human beings evolved from star-dust, but did you not know that “out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Luke 3: 8) and that “you are dust, and unto dust you shall return” (Genesis 3: 19)? Modern day science can show Christians clearer ways to envision doctrines such as the Trinity, the Body of Christ, Adam and Eve, Heaven and Hell, but we will have to leave that discussion for another time.
I’ll simply end by saying that if I had to believe that evolution was not true, I could not be a Christian. But if I had to believe that Christianity was not true, I could not understand evolution.
Category: Viewpoint
So a dog craps on my lawn, and I think about the crap on my lawn and it occurs to me that the molecular structure of this pile of steaming organic waste is actually quite complex. There should be any number of organic residue types, and their constituent DNA, mixed amongst the various waste compounds, which are themselves not without a degree of complexity on the atomic and subatomic scales.
Do I say that this steamer is proof of the existence of a god, simply because the atomic and molecular structuresare more complex than the simple hydrogen clouds that primarily constitute the stellar nurseries that spawned our star and gave rise to the solar system 4 billion years ago, and later us?
Or do I simply say that shit happens?
Was there a "first cause" of this fecal matter, or was it just the dog food Rover scroungedup yesterday?
And it occurs to me that adding metaphysical elements to the absolutely ordinary won’t change the smell. Some things just are…
The fact that man has advanced to the degree that he has discovered, can describe, measure, use and predict the effect of some of these physical laws does not in any way negate the reasonable inference that these laws were designed and put in place by a supremely intelligent being. Einstein put it in these words: “We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws”.
To be continued in Part II
That’s a bigger steamer than the dog left on my lawn!
Your fundamental error is in the leap from "a dog caused the dog crap" to "because there is a universe there exists a god with the following characteristices…". We can see the dog, and in fact probably fed him the food that caused the crap, but we can never see what happened at or prior to the big bang (admit it, you weren’t there…).
Presuming the universe didn’t just pop into existence all by itself, which presumption is of course the very subject mattter under debate, my doggy-doo anlogy demonstrates that there are other causes of things besides a god (i.e. the dog in the first posting).
You say that the initiation of the universe proves the existence of a god, I say that just like the steamer on my lawn, the universe might very well have been created by an enormous intergalactic [insert alien name] taking an extremely large crap on his neighbour’s porch. You are offering a presumed answer that you can not possibly have any knowledge of ("it was god"), while I am merely pointing out the incoherence in that position.
Were I to go further, I would assert positively that it was [insert alien name] that created the universe, and then go on to speculate what [insert alien name] ate in order to cause such intestinal disfortitude. That is exactly what you are doing.
And no, it is not easier to believe in a "supremely intelligent spirit being who exists outside of time and space" simply because you like to believe in causes about the beginning of the universe (which is itself another presumption, since you weren’t there), rather than to be honest and say that you don’t know.
Saying "I wasn’t there and I don’t know" is much more honest. I did see the dogcrap on my lawn you know, but you weren’t at the big bang.
[PS – please re-read the parts about the hydrogen clouds. I was clearly NOT on about the big bang, but instead about the making our our solar system. A little cosmology might do you some good.]
[PPS – the fact that we don’t know stuff is no reason to postulate the existence of a god. People know that books are written by people, but people DON’T know that a god created the universe. Similarly, people KNOW that The analogy is thereofre intellectually dishonest. Cave men didn’t know about airplanes and telephones, but that’s not proof of a god either.]
Since you obviously have some difficulty with logical reasoning there probably is no point to continue this discussion. Your posts consists of a refrain of "you weren’t there". This, of course, is a non-point. Neither were you, and neither was anyone else, hence that assertion of the obvious does not make your view superior to mine. No one is making a case based on alleged first hand experience of the birth of the universe. Obviously, it is not necessary for one to have been there to conclude from the evidence and believe on the basis of faith that God is the first cause.
As for fundamental errors, you have this utterly confused and reversed. It was you who introduced dog poo as an appropriate analogy to somehow demonstrate that there was no first cause and to cosmology (of which it is clear you have little understanding since you began with the origin of the solar system to discuss a first cause). I have demonstrated that it is completely inappropriate as an analogy and proves absolutely nothing about the origins of the universe.
This will be my last post.
OK then, thanks for coming out. Enjoy your assumptions and unsubstantiated faith. I don’t expect that will cause too much harm.
PS – You say "…hence that assertion of the obvious does not make your view superior to mine", but that is not true. I assert that we don’t know about the beginning of the universe because we lack evidence on which to ascertain the facts, but you positively conclude that there exists an entity named god despite the absence of evidence on the point. I claim the superior answer because it is more intellectually honest, and your retreat into "faith" is an insult to the scientific method.
Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not getdown on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
John 6:53-54 and Mark 16:16.
http://godisimaginary.com/i21.htm – What a wonderful site!
Nice attempt to twist the gospel. You don’t go to hell because you don’t worship Jesus, you go because you are a sinner. Jesus’s sacrifice is rather like throwing life saver to a drowning man. Some get it and grab and hold while others mock it and would then blame the saviour that they perish.
So go to hell, but by a dfferent means:
I am Jesus. I repeat all that mushy stuff but now you don’t have to worship me or EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD,but…
… if you don’t believe and profess that I am MAGIC, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY !!!
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
Francis Crick, the biochemist who discovered the structure of DNA, won a Nobel prize for the research he had carried out on the subject. Crick, who was an ardent evolutionist, stated the following scientific opinion in a book he wrote after testifying to the miraculous structure of DNA: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Even in Crick’s view, who was one of the biggest experts on DNA, life could never originate on earth spontaneously.
Evolutionists can in no way offer any explanation on the subject of how DNA originated.
Evolutionist authority and world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel has this to say on the subject:
"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS".
In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, writing of the invalidity of the theory of evolution, renowned molecular biologist Prof. Michael Denton explains the unreasonable conviction of Darwinists:
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply AN AFFRONT TO REASON. BUT TO THE DARWINIST, THE IDEA IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT A RIPPLE OF DOUBT – THE PARADIGM TAKES PRECEDENCE
Here’s are some other quotations from Crick:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
“The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas.” — Francis Crick (TheAstonishing Hypothesis (1994), p. 261-2)
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138".
Actually, I don’t think this helps your case at all. Quite the opposite. The only reason why one would have to CONSTANTLY REMIND oneself of that is to combat the obvious conclusion that it is in fact designed and maintain the orthodoxy of the scientific establishment. In other words, you are not allowed to come to your own objective conclusion about the matter. It is sancrosanct. Sounds more like religion than true science.
What, exactly, do you suppose my point to be?
I am merely pointing out that when you claim Crick as a supporter of creationism, you are not on firm ground. Crick identified himself quite clearly as an atheist; he did not believe in intelligent design in the sense you mean. He did, once, posit a theory that humankind was seeded by intelligent aliens from a distant planet. Is that what you believe?
In any case, science does not claim to have all the answers. It only insists on continuing to look for them.
Where as the church insists it does have the answers and to stop looking.
If people actaully did that we would still be believing the Church’s belief that the universe revolves around the earth, an we would not have any modern medicine.
We might even be still buying time out of pergutory by paying all our money to the church, so the priests can live their lives of decadence.
Nowhere have I stated or implied that Crick is a supporter of creationism. Far from it he is an avowed atheist.
The point is that even an avowed atheist top scientist when he applies science has to acknowledge that he has no answers but only marvel at what he sees as "almost a miracle". Obviously that does not mean that I am endorsing Crick’s belief system and speculations (which in any event are not based on science).
Of course science does not have all the answers. Some of the answers are outside of its remit but no doubt you have the FAITH that one day science will.
I have the *hope* that one day science will have more answers than it has now, not the faith.
Why does it surprise you that scientists marvel? Even atheists marvel! How could they not?
In any case, "almost a miracle" is not at all the same as "a miracle". The key word here is "almost".
Who are you to know that some of the answers are outside the remit of science? I humbly suggest that you are only human, just like me, and can in no way predict the future.
The word "faith" scares you a bit, doesn’t it? Faith is believing something without proof. Like it or not, those who believe that science will one day have the answers have put their trust in science and are exercising faith.
As an atheist the addition of "almost" was obviously his way of trying to soften the word "miracle". And miracle it is – extraordinary, marvellous and not explained by science.
Some of the answers are outside of science’s remit because science is the study of the natural realm and does not include the supernatural realm. It studies "how" and does not attempt to answer "why", or assumes that there is no why? The ultimate answers lie in the supernatural realm. The issue has nothing to do with me being human or foretelling the future.
I don’t believe. I think.
The word faith does not scare me; it just doesn’t mean very much to me, beyond the secular notion of loyalty or confidence in a person or plan. I find it quite hard to believe that those of you who say you have "faith" and "believe" really do. Certainly you don’t behave as though you do.
Your second paragraph is conjecture only; I clearly do not interpret Crick’s words in the same way you seem to do.
There probably is no supernatural realm. You certainly don’t have a shred of real proof that there is one. You believe that there is one, and nothing more. Obviously I disagree with your statement thatthe ultimate answers lie in the supernatural realm, since I don’t think there is any such thing. Why continue?
Obviously we all have beliefs. You simply refuse to recognize yours.
I don’t know how you can make generalisations like " I find it quite hard to believe that those of you who say you have "faith" and "believe" really do. Certainly you don’t behave as though you do". Nobody who says they have faith behaves as though they do? That is an absurd statement based on your own prejudices.
It’s not just me. A recent Pew study found that most American Christians failed a basic test on religious knowledge, and knew less than atheists and agnostics about their own faith. Most of these people claim to believe in the central tenets of their religions, and yet they can’t even say what these are.
The Barna group recently completed a separate study showing that most American Christians do not believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit exist. Twenty-two percent of Christians did not believe in the divinity and perfection ofJesus Christ. Only a slight majority of Christians (55%) strongly agreed that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches. The author of the study concludes that:
"Most Americans, even those who say they are Christian, have doubts about the intrusion of the supernatural into the natural world."
The problem is that the study you cite does not support the broad sweeping statement made in the post about all people who say they have faith. No one is denying that there are Christians who are poorly informed about their faith or have differences on doctrine, but this of course besides the point. It does not negate the fact that there are many Christians who are well informed and do exercise genuine faith.
Actually, both studies make it clear that the respondents identified themselves as believers — they *are* the ones who, as you put it, "say they have faith." Both studies also deal with majorities.
In any case, I am not sure how you can argue being unaware of the tenets in which you purport to believe is besides the point.
You continue to miss the point which I have now made several times: you have made an unwarranted GENERALISATION about ALL people who say they have faith. If you still have not got it then I will just let it go.
No, you have missed the point. Not one, but two studies, one conducted by an internationally respected organization known for its respectful deference to religion, and the other conducted by a Christian, make the generalization for me. Believers, in their own words and of their own volition, call themselves Christians and then reveal that they do not actually know (Pew) or actually believe (Barna) the major tenets of their own faiths. That is not me making a generalization. Those are your own people announcing their lack of belief.
I do not mean to be uncharitable, and I’m sorry if that is an inconvenient truth for you, but there it is.
"Those are your own people announcing their lack of belief".
This is your fundamental error. The survey says that the persons were self-described as Christians. However, a large percentage of these said that they did not believe in the divinity and perfection of Jesus Christ. This is an absolutely fundamental point. Christians can reasonably disagree of many things – which day should be held as sacred, e.g. but if one does not believe in the divinity and perfection of Christ then one cannot be a Christian even by the most liberal definition. One can be a Muslim and believe that he was a great prophet. One can be a Hindu and believe that he was a great exemplar. So what the survey really reveals is that there are many people who are misdescribing themselves as Christians.
It isn’t as I put it, I was borrowing your phrase:
"I find it quite hard to believe that those of you who say you have "faith" and "believe" really do. Certainly you don’t behave as though you do".
There doesn’t appear be much in continuing this exchange if you are confusing your words with mine.
I am not sure how citing "differences on [sic] doctrine" helps your case. Religious people say they believe that god is infallible, andthey also say that the Holy Bible is a direct and inspired communication from him which will, in time, be proven to be true in every respect despite its apparent contradictions. They believe, in other words, that the Bible gives human beings a knowledge, and a set of laws, that they could not have discovered through their own unaided reason. To repeat, this is divinely given knowledge not otherwise available to human intelligence.
But unaided reason is exactly what believers then use to interpret the Bible in different ways; to determine for themselves which parts of it (despite the contradictions mentioned above) should be taken literally and which metaphorically; to decide which parts should still apply today and which should not; and to figure out what the parables actually mean.
Quite honestly, I am glad that Christians do consider alternate interpretations for some of the nastier verses in the Bible, and I can understand the motivation to do so. However, I cannot see how someone who professes to believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of an infallible creator could justify it.
Well that was a nice ramble, but I fail to see how it connected with the issues being discussed.
Sorry, let me give you the simpler version.
1. Believers say the Bible is inspired by God.
2. Believers say God is infallible.
3. Believers say that the word of their infallible, omniscient God is not available to human reason and MUST be divinely revealed.
BUT
4. Believers use said unfit human reason to interpret, change, reinterpret, and translate the Bible, canceling some bits out and emphasizing others, as and when it suits them, and they generally accept that such "doctrinal difference" is not problematic between sects. (Apart from when homosexuals or women in the ministry are mentioned, in which case, some still feel that antique law should stand. You can forget the one about shellfish, though.)
The apparent ease with which believers edit their academic way around the bible makes it unlikely that #1-3 are held to be quite as immutable as all that.
It would seem, therefore, that many believers do not truly believe in the infallibility of their god’s word, except when it suits them.
I give the evangelicals a by on this, since they at least have the sincerity to let their holy word stand as is.
The words of Mark Twain are relevant here. As he said, "Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes, and wishes he was certain."
– Notebook, 1879
I notice that the study says that the respondents "self-identify" as Christians. If you don’t believe in the divinity and perfection of Jesus Christ you are not a Christian. There are many matters on which Christians can reasonably disagree but that is not one of them. We might disagree on salvation through faith alone. We might even disagree on the Trinity, but there is no dispute that according to the biblical record Jesus Christ identified himself as divine and it was for that reason that the Jews sought to have him put to death – blasphemy. This is the fundamental test: "Who do men say that I am?…You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God…Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven." You could be a Muslim and believe that he was a great prophet, or a Hindu and believe that he was a great exemplar, but not a Christian.
So the point is not that there are lots of Christians who are ignorant or confused about their belief system, but rather that there are lots of people who are mis-identifying themselves as Christians.
Unless you are the author of the following website, you need to provide references for some of the writing above. You have copied and pasted directly — and not just the information inside your quotations.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/dna/dnamiracle2.php
That would be the ssme Prof. Michael Denton that wrote that book 25 years ago, and has since changed his views, and his last book Nature’s Destiny, he argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life.
He is nolonger associates himself with "intelligent designers"
So nice FAIL
And let’s see as for Francis Crick didn’t he say:
"Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children"
and also thought "peculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”
I would also point out that noone understands why there is gravity and the true nature of light, it doesn’t mean either don’t exist though does it LOL
"That would be the ssme Prof. Michael Denton that wrote that book 25 years ago, and has since changed his views, and his last book Nature’s Destiny, he argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life.
He is nolonger associates himself with "intelligent designers"
So nice FAIL".
That would be a false statement. The full title of his "last book" is "Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal ***Purpose*** in the Universe".
In it he states: "The challenge posed to ***undirected*** evolution by the constraints inherent incomplex systems is… all the subsystems are intensely integrated…. Any change beyond a trivial degree is bound to necessitate ****intelligently directed**** compensatory changes in many of the interacting subsystems. In this context it is hard to understand how undirected evolution via a series of independent changes could ever produce a radical redesign in any sort of system as complex as a living organism.
As regards Crick, notwithstanding his acknowledgement that evolution cannot explain DNA and that is "almost a miracle" this was not consistent with his atheistic belief system to turned to speculation about ‘more evolved’ space aliens shipping life to earth. LOL. Of course even if you accept this ‘hypothesis’ it only shifts the problem back one step and you still have not explained the ultimate origin of DNA. The key words from your quote are "speculated about the possibility". That is not science. The point is that as much as they may pretend always to be objective scientists have their ideological and philosophical biases too.
"I would also point out that noone understands why there is gravity and the true nature of light, it doesn’t mean either don’t exist though does it LOL"
LOL indeed. That would be a false analogy. No one is arguing that DNA does not exist. The point is that evolution cannot explain its existence.
"Of course even if you accept this ‘hypothesis’ it only shifts the problem back one step and you still have not explained the ultimate origin of DNA."
And, of course, the very same argument is relevant to the God hypothesis. Shifting creation back to God does not explain how God arrived on the scene.
God is the first cause. You see we don’t have to pretend to have a theory to explain the existence of God. He just is, and our ability to explain his existence does not negate his existence.
Which god?
It will not surprise you to learn that many are not at all persuaded by the argument from first cause. In the words of Bertrand Russell:
I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?’" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Bertrand (and you) don’t follow logic all the way.
Who made me? Who made God? Who made what made God? This question goes on for infinity, and so there is only one sensible answer to this question.
That there had to be something that has no beginning. i.e. The eternal First Cause, God.
As proposed by the great Aquinas and Aristotle (masters of logic!) of course.
Your first cause argument is of course logically flawed and applied on an ad hoc basis. Your conclusion that there is no beginning actually fits with current scientific thinking, but your insistence that this leads logically to the conclusion that there is an eternal God is all faith.
A scientific perspective would tell us that the law of conservation of mass/energy would require that the total mass/energy of the universe has always existed in some form or other, for mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed in our universe, merely converted into different forms. We may not understand how the universe came into being at this time, but this does not require a supernatural being as a catalyst; it simply requires that a well supported law of physics applied before the big bang and will continue to apply, in your terms, eternally.
No God required.
Clearly, you need to catch up. In case you hadn’t noticed, the universe and the organisms therein are rather more than mere energy and matter. There is abundant evidence of design (which atheists for ideological reasons either prefer to call the mere "appearance of design", or they acknowledge the design and say that space aliens did it!). Design requires a designer, and in the cases of extreme complexity a supremely intelligent designer.
Even if we accept that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed it does not follow that the universe always existed and that certainly does not represent current scientific thought. It also obviously does not explain how the universe came into being. You mention the Big Bang but none of that explains why there was a Big Bang. Einstein thought that it implied a creator. Clearly, it required a catalyst. It is a matter of joining the dots and you have to do mental gymnastics or engage in unscientific speculation in order to avoid the implication of a creator.
I am fully caught up, thanks very much. It is in my personality to do my own research on matters which interest me. In all my reading I have yet to find any credible evidence which supports the creationist position. There is abundant evidence of complex organisms all around us, but it is question of faith to attribute their existence to God. And whether you like it or not, they are all mass and energy. As for attributing design to space aliens, way to select your comments! I see no more evidence for this in my reading than for God.
One thing I have discovered is that a good way to judge whether one is dealing with science or faith is to ask the simple question, what would it take to make you change your mind? To paraphrase one evolutionary scientist when asked this, the answer is " the fossil of a modern day rabbit in a Cambrian fossil bed." It’s that easy. So, tell me, what would it take for you to change your mind about intelligent design? I look forward to your response.
I would suggest you focus a little more on comprehension. My post did not suggest that the universe has always existed. Try reading it again. I suggested that the mass/energy which comprises our universe had always existed, although it’s form before the Big Bang is the subject of much scientific debate. Such a position is consistent with the law of conservation of mass/energy and conforms to current thinking that there was "something" before our universe came into being.
This last point also addresses an underlying assumption in your position which creationists rarely seem to recognise. Implicit in your position is the assumption that the natural order of things is complete nothingness, into which your God introduced mass/energy. Yet by our very existence we confirm that mass/energy exists, so a logically more sustainable position is that the natural order of things is that mass /energy exist and have always existed ( that law of conservation of mass/energy again).
You are right to suggest that we cannot currently explain with certainty how the Big Bang originated, but that does not mean that we will never understand. But to suggest Einstein was open to the idea that it was the product of a creator is to fall for the layman’s belief about Einstein’s religious views. He wrote in 1954 " It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." Seems pretty clear to me, but maybe Einstein didn’t know his own mind.
Your last sentence is a dozy!!! All I can say is that if the Olympics had an event for mental gymnastics and unscientific speculation, you and many in Cayman would rival Cydonie in her accomplishments. Still, it’s always good to leave the reader smiling, eh?
If only your intellect matched up to the high opinion you have of it. You cited the law that energy can neither created nor destroyed as if this alone could explain the universe without the need of a creator. As I pointed out by reference to the complexityof the design of the universe, it does not. Yet apparently oblivious to my point you have continued to write that energy and mass always existed as if this somehow overcomes the problem of the design of the universe.
As for comprehension issues, I don’t think I said anywhere that Einstein was religious or that he believed in a personal god, but since we are on the subject Einstein wrote and said many things that touch on that issue. Here are a few:
1. In his book “The World As I See It” Einstein wrote that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection".
2. “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble".
3. "I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind"
4. "I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws".
It seems clear that Einstein’s ideas about God amounted to deism and that Einstein was an early proponent of intelligent design. Perhaps you should take note about what the attitude of even the most intelligent human being should be since you clearly imagine yourself in that category.
Of the two of us, only one seems concerned about my intellect. I have no opinion on the subject. I am what I am; intelligent or idiot, that is for others to judge. What I do claim to be is an individual who likes to think for himself and was lucky enough not to be shackled in childhood with someone else’s religious convictions. I am not an atheist; I am open to persuasion but it is going to have to come in the form of something a little more convincing than taking someone else’s word for it.
You have a fundamental belief that the universe was designed and without tracking back through every post to see if you expressly state which god you support, I will assume here it is the God of the Book of Genesis ( given the topic of the article which started this thread). This being the case, you almost certainly believe that God created the universe ex nihilo. It is this belief to which my references to the law of conservation of mass/energy relate, because current scientific thinking suggests that, as i wrote before, the mass/energy of our universe has always existed, albeit prior to the Big Bang in a different form.
This is fundamentally inconsistent with the creation of the universe ex nihilo; they cannot both be right. Further, if mass and energy have existed in infinity, then your first cause argument is negated, because there is no first cause, simply at this point in our understanding a gap in our knowledge of what caused the Big Bang. Creationists of course love a gap in our knowledge, for it allows that gap to be filled by faith.
There is not much else to say. My view on Einstein has been addressed in another post above and there is no point repeating it here. I note you did not accept my challenge ( I assume you are the same poster to whom I initially replied but " anonymous" is a name used by many posters here ) to educate me on what would change your mind with respect to intelligent design. I am not surprised, because of course nothing would change your mind; yours is a position based on faith, not objective and open minded thinking, which is why these debates always achieve nothing and why this will be my last post.
Thanks for your explanation. It might interest you to know that Genesis does not actually state that universe was created ex nihilo. While that is the orthodox view there are some theologians who disagree with that view. I have no fixed view on the issue. However, either way, this does not remove God as the first cause of the universe.
"…because current scientific thinking suggests that, as i wrote before, the mass/energy of our universe has always existed"
It is curious why you can intellectually accept that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, i.e. has always existed without any cause, but cannot accept the concept that God has always existed without any cause.
As I understand it before the Big Bang space and time did not exist and the laws of physics did not apply (physicists please correct me if I am wrong). It would follow that this issue has no implications whatsoever for the existence of God as the first cause of all that exists.
"But to suggest Einstein was open to the idea that it was the product of a creator is to fall for the layman’s belief about Einstein’s religious views".
You seem to imply that Einstein was an atheist. If so you are misrepresenting Einstein by omission. See
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html
There are many theories of creation, but unless I am mistaken, this thread is focused on the beliefs of essentially fundamentalist Protestant Christians. We are after all posting under an article seeking to reconcile modern science with the Book of Genesis.
I merely used Einstein’s own words to illustrate that he did not believe in a personal God. What could be more alien to an individual who believes in the literal truth of the Book of Genesis?
A couple of extracts from the article you posted:
"… he began to articulate more clearly–in various essays, interviews and letters–his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one. "
"It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."
I certainly don’t claim to have read every book or article on this subject, but I have never come across any suggestion that creationists don’t care which god was responsible for the universe, as long as one was. They very much care and in this Einstein’s beliefs and theirs differ significantly. For creationists to refer to Einstein for support of their position and overlook his lack of support for their concept of God is to me logically inconsistent, but then again, what use logic when faith is in play?
Now you are trying to obfuscate. You have made the statement that the universe can be explained without any god at all and that there is no evidence of any god. Its just energy and mass, you say. The quotes from Einstein based on his observations as a scientist refute that. Obviously quoting Einstein for this purpose does not require that I adopt Einstein’s belief system in toto. There is nothing logically inconsistent in that position. However, if you insist that there is then you mustalso accept that there is something logically inconsistent when you quote the Bible to make your points.
"However, if you insist that there is then you must also accept that there is something logically inconsistent when you quote the Bible to make your points."
I’m afraid this is indicative of your ability to keep up. There are no quotes from the bible in any of my posts.
As for Einstein, his contribution to science exceeds almost all other humans, but when it comes to the existence of God his views hold no more authority than any of us. I could point out that Stephen Hawking published a book in September in which he states that physics, not God created our universe. Hawking of course has 55 years of accumulated scientific research, study and advanced technology on Einstein, but I doubt this cuts much ice with you. You know he is wrong because you have faith!
My last post on this part of the thread also unless you actually have something interesting to say.
My ability to keep up? I love this affected sense of superiority, particularly because it is not in any way substantiated in the quality of your posts.
There are a number of posts in which you have quoted from persons who are quoting the Bible.
"As for Einstein, his contribution to science exceeds almost all other humans, but when it comes to the existence of God his views hold no more authority than any of us".
You didn’t make this statement when you believed that Einstein was an atheist.
You are apparently confused. It was you (not I) who was insisting that if we accept Einstein’s scientific conclusions about intelligent design then we are also forced to accept his belief system.
You might make a similar comment about Stephen Hawking, of course. Hawking simply making a statement, which is no way proved, that physics created the universe and not God does not in fact cut any ice with me. He has not shown how physics explains the existence of DNA for example. It is simply a statement of his ideology.
God is imaginary.
Sorry to jump into your little debate, but I just have to…
"…the universe and the organisms therein are rather more than mere energy and matter." Really? How do you prove or establish that? Strikes me that you are ASSUMING the very thing that you are trying to establish: that there is a metaphysical "add-on" to the physical universe that we should be trying to understand. Why not be scientific about it and stack up your evidence ofmetaphysical realities, and then postulate your hypothesis on that foundation?
"There is abundant evidence of design ." Nope, there is just stuff. The stuff follows the laws of physics, as far as we can tell. This does not establish design (which is another way of hiding the ASSUMPTION of a designer, but building in "a design"); it just establishes that there is stuff. Cool and exotic stuff, but stuff nonetheless.
"Clearly, it required a catalyst." ASSUMPTION. Clearly. But even if there was a "cause" (which is another bogus argument from Aristotle), why was the "cause" god? Why not an accident? Why postulate an onmipotent being (which all evidence contradicts) when "sh!t happens" is a vastly more functional hypothosis. Enough said.
Er…no. That particular passage was not referring to metaphysical realities. It was explained by the sentence which followed, i.e. it had to do with design of the universe and the organisms therein, i.e empirical evidence. Let me break down for you: the universe = mass + energy + design, and not merely the universe = mass + energy. Mass + energy could just be chaos.
Er…no again. It is not just stuff. Again, there is design. Rather than an assumption of a designer, that there is a designer is the natural conclusion from observing empirical evidence of design. Quite to the contrary, the naturalism assumption is made by some scientists that there is no designer and so even if there is evidence of design it must be "apparent" only because it would be ideologically unacceptable to reach the obvious conclusion.
Because every effect has a cause. The most basic definition of God is the first cause. Again the argument flows from design which is so complex and finely tuned that it must have required a supremely intelligent designer and since we are discussing things on a cosmic scale that designer must be very powerful indeed.
So the crux of the argument is design. As I said there is abundant evidence for design. I have given a few quotes from Einstein that show that he was awed by the evidence of design and that this not some fantasy of believers or naive lay people.
The classic example of intelligent design is DNA which most scientists will admit cannot be explained by evolution. Origins.com explains it thusly. The information contained in DNA is vast. The DNA molecule is exquisitely complex, and extremely precise: the ‘letters’ must be in a very exact sequence. It is irreducibly complex. From common experience we know that it requires an intelligent agent to generate information, codes, messages. As a result, it is reasonable to infer there was an intelligent cause of the original DNA code.
Sorry where is this "abundant evidence of design "
?
As for Einstein implying a creator:
To a Colorado banker who wrote and asked him the God question, Einstein responded: “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
The most famous Einstein pronouncement on God came in the form of a telegram, in which he was asked to answer the question in 50 words or less. He did it in 32: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
Thank you
There is no point in debating with numpties like this.
Ah, the eternal first cause. Even if there is an eternal first cause (which is, of course, speculation and nothing more), why assume it is god? And if a god, which one or ones? And what are they like? And where have they gone?
If a god can exist without a mover, why cannot the universe?
I appreciate your continuing to debate, and it is encouraging to see that we have done the same reading around the subject. Obviously we will not agree, as you are willing to accept the idea of an unmoved mover called God (I assume the Christian one) and I do not see any such certainty. In any case, these arguments have been undertaken before by greater minds than ours.
Thank you for your time, and enjoy your continued thinking and reading.
"If a god can exist without a mover, why cannot the universe?"
Because he is God. He is spirit. Because every effect has a cause and while the universe is an effect, God is not. Because unintelligent matter and energy cannot give rise to intelligence. At most it could be the material cause of the universe but not the efficient cause. It is circular to refer to the laws of physics as the cause. Where did they come from? Did they just magically start to operate, or where they designed and put in place by a supremely intelligent being?
I think the better question is that if you are willing to accept that matter can be eternal and exist without cause why can you not accept that God can exist eternally without a cause?
Will it really make a difference to you which god it is, or are you simply looking to be argumentative?
I don’t see any evidence at all for your first four statements. All of that is mere conjecture on your part, and while you are welcome to your own theories, there is no basis for debate.
Your questions about the impetus for and evolution of intelligence are interesting, and we could go together through the many theories science has developed, but that would be quite pointless. I am sure you have read them yourself, and if you haven’t, you could. In any case, you would continue to look to your god, as is your right. If you are asking for my take on the matter, then I can only say that it seems more likely to me that unintelligent matter could, in fact, give rise to intelligence — not all at once, but in incremental stages — than that a magical man in the sky snapped his fingers and life as we know it appeared. Science is working on these questions, and I think what science has to say on the matter thus far is far more convincing and logical than what is written in the Bible. Again, you are welcome to your own ideas, but I cannot agree with them.
Your last two questions are worth answering.
You ask: "…if you are willing to accept that matter can be eternal and exist without cause why can you not accept that God can exist eternally without a cause?" I will use Michael Shermer’s words to begin:
God…would have to exist outside of space and time, which means that as natural beings delimited by living in a finite universe, we cannot possibly know anything about such a supernatural entity. The theist’s answer is an untestable hypothesis.
(From http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/the-biggest-big-question-of-all)
That is how I feel about the matter. To accept the *possibility* that *something* might have existed eternally is a very uncertain thing in and of itself. We simply don’t know (yet). I see no reason to go on to attribute further anthropomorphic characteristics to a theoretical entity which can only be imaginary. Calling such a theoretical entity "God" in the sense in which most people mean it, and calling it "perfect," "omniscient", "loving" and so on, is meaningless.
There may come a day when science can answer this question. Until then, I see no good reason to make things up.
Your last question was, "Will it really make a difference to you which god it is, or are you simply looking to be argumentative?"
I am not entirely sure I understand your question. As I have not given any indication of believing in a god, surely it is a moot point which god you posit for my consideration?
If you are asking whether, in a conjectural sense, I would prefer one of the gods humans have imagined up to now and written about in their holy books, then I would choose none. My reasons are my own, but I would be glad to share them if you are interested.
If you would like me to imagine that some mysterious greater intelligence in the manner of Spinoza’s god or something lesser has had a hand in shaping our lives here on earth, then perhaps it would matter to me on a personal level, but I doubt it. I don’t see any evidence that such a creature is in any way present or even interested in the world as we know it. Elvis would have left the building, so to speak.
However, I am perplexed by your question, coming, as it does, from a believer. Would it not matter to you?
I would be glad to continue if I have misinterpreted your questions, particularly your last. I can only say that your first three statements, which you use to substantiate your ideas about first causes, are meaningless to me, and therefore unconvincing.
Ah, sorry, I have just now realized that your last question was a response to my question in the post above. Limited human intelligence, and all. ;0)
The question is not for me, though. I am not positing any gods. You do, and I assume quite a specific one, probably Judeo-Christian. My questions about which god or gods might be responsible for creation was meant to point out that even if an unknown intelligence turns out to terra-farmed our universe, we can’t possibly know anything about it. Your adherence to a specific god, therefore, puzzles me. (Believe it or not, that is a genuine statement, and not meant to to be argumentative.)
Ah, sorry, I have just now realized that your last question was a response to my question in the post above. Limited human intelligence, and all. ;0)
The question is not for me, though. I am not positing any gods. You do, and I assume quite a specific one, probably Judeo-Christian. My questions about which god or gods might be responsible for creation was meant to point out that even if an unknown intelligence turns out to have terra-farmed our universe, we can’t possibly know anything about it. Your adherence to a specific god, therefore, puzzles me. (Believe it or not, that is a genuine statement, and not meant to to be argumentative.)
"I don’t see any evidence at all for your first four statements. All of that is mere conjecture on your part, and while you are welcome to your own theories, there is no basis for debate".
No, its not conjecture. It is a matter ofrevelation and faith. Not the same thing. I am explaining to you why there is internal logic in my viewpoint and why it must be God and not matter.
It is not meaningful to ask for (physical) evidence that God exists as spirit. You are trying to apply science which is the study of the natural realm to discover truth about a realm outside of its remit.
"God…would have to exist outside of space and time, which means that as natural beings delimited by living in a finite universe, we cannot possibly know anything about such a supernatural entity. The theist’s answer is an untestable hypothesis".
God indeed exists outside of space and time. It is correct that we cannot know anything about him merely as natural beings. However, you have made an assumption that we are merely natural beings which we dispute and which ought to be acknowledged in the same way was our concept of God as a supernatural entity is acknowledged. We have a spirit and God who is spirit can communicate to us through our spirits and that as an all-powerful and infinitely intelligent being he can overcome any barriers that might supervene. That is a supernatural process and so it means absolutely nothing to say that there is no scientific evidence of this. It is not merely a hypothesis. So, I am afraid that answer is not nearly as clever as you might think. The whole notion that science now has some sort of magisterium over religion is misconceived because their remits are different.
"I don’t see any evidence that such a creature is in any way present or even interested in the world as we know it".
The misnomer "creature" is very telling. You are thinking of the physical again and expecting to subject God to scientific experiments.
I think you have demonstrated my point about "which god". It doesn’t really matter to you even if it is Spinoza’s god and so the question was not being asked in good faith.
I am not actually trying to be clever, just honest.
Okay…we agree that there is no natural evidence for a god or gods.
You believe the following:
We have a spirit and God who is spirit can communicate to us through our spirits and that as an all-powerful and infinitely intelligent being he can overcome any barriers that might supervene.
I can only reply that no god has made any kind of communication or revelation to me. You also say that he can overcome any barriers that might intervene (including what you will assume, not knowing my religious history, to be my own closed mind). He has, then, chosen to ignore me and many like me, in which case he haspurposely consigned us to hell. Why would a loving god create some humans only to burned up in an eternal fire?
I do not think the word "creature" is a misnomer at all, since in my view, gods (at least the gods currently available to our imaginations) are the creatures (that is, the creations) of mankind. It does not necessarily imply the physical — consider the expression, "creatures of the imagination." In any case, my use of the word does not mean that my question was not asked in good faith. It is a reasonable question to ask, since you have not identified which of the many available gods you believe in. I am simply trying to understand your point of view, as I assumed you were trying to understand mine.
You don’t have a "spirit". That’s just silly. You are a biophysical machine that experiences and exhibits consciousness as a result of the operation of your brain, a physical thing. Don’t believe that? Pour alcohol into your system and see how your consciousness changes as your biochemistry changes; ditto any psychoactive drug. Get a lobotomy and see if your consciousness doesn’t change proportionally to the amount of tissue removed. Have your brain wholly removed (but stay on life support) and see how "spirited" you are then.
Spirit tales just make no sense, unless you are trying to make up a bogus story to support a desired connection to a story about an invisible omnipotent person that you made up so that you don’t have to be afraid of being dead.
Don’t be afraid. There’s nothing after death and you won’t feel a thing. Enjoy your life and skip the deluded thinking,
"You don’t have a "spirit"’
Technically you’re right. I don’t have a spirit. I am a spirit who has a soul and lives in a body. The spirit is that part of you that survives death of the body. There are many, many cases of ‘out of body’ experiences during which persons have been able to accurately perceive what was happening to their unconscious physical bodies in detail from a vantage point away from the body. It is not at all dependent upon the functioning of the physical body. And yes, I know all about the experiments which have tried to replicate the full experience, but none have really been successful. I am not expecting you to understand or agree because you are clearly ideologically committed to the position that we are simply physical beings and that nothing exists other than the physical.
Just so you are aware, my relationship with God is not based on fear but love. I enjoy life fully; it is full of meaning and purpose. You can have that too, if you are brave enough to open your mind and your heart to that possibility and not to fear others believing you are unintelligent or just plain bonkers.
Your are assuming temporal linearity, which is not a given.
I am afraid Bertie had some flaws in his logic. It is not every "thing" that has its cause but rather every "effect" that has a cause. God is not an effect and it is therefore not necessary for him to have a cause, hence the premise of his argument is incorrect. Logically there must ultimately be a causeless cause and that for us is God.
Russell also said that there "is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed". I believe most modern scientists, who provides estimates of the age of the universe, would disagree with this statement.
Bertie was not persuaded because of faulty logic and outdated science.
You wrote: "Evolutionists can in no way offer any explanation on the subject of how DNA originated."
I am not sure why you find this statement newsworthy. Evolutionists readily acknowledge that the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and has occurred requires further study. Do you consider their willingness to continue to learn about the world around them — and not to stop at conjecture — a bad thing?
"Newsworthy"?. This is a comment in a post on a newswebsite. I think you are deliberately missing the point because it is unanswerable. It has been stated a number of times on this thread that science (i.e. the theory of evolution) can give a full account of nature without any involvement of a god. This demonstrates that that statement is false.
No, it doesn’t demonstrate that the statement is false. It simply asserts that the statement is false, without demonstrating anything.
You are taking as a given that which you hope to prove.
I think you are confused. Obviously I don’t have to prove that there is no scientific explanation of how DNA came into existence. That is a simple fact that is acknowledged by top scientists. Instead they resort to "speculations about possibilities" of highly evolved aliens sending pods to earth.
I didn’t say that you had to. I said that you hadn’t. And no, they don’t. One did.
There is little room for rational discussion here. Let’s face it, Cayman is a third world country with a third world education system. It is also in a region with high levels of religiosity already in place. These facts put together mean that many of the "true believers" are indoctrinated from an early stage in articles of faith.
Of course Genesis is a fairy story. Many Christians accept that. But those that hold on to these stories as an article of faith are as immovable as they are delusional.
But delusional though they may be, they are probably happier and more helpful to those in the community compared to many of us who think we know so much better. It may work as an opiate, but opiates feels good.
Live and let live. But I would not mind going to a bookstore on a Sunday!
Sorry, but contrary to your obviously sincere contribution, the widely-accepted theory of evolution and the biblical account of Creation are basically at irreconcilable odds on far too many points to be compatible.
Case in point: The concept of natural selection (popularly termed "survival of the fittest) requires evolutionary adaptations to ensure the best chance for "survival" of the organism, with the adaptations contributing to the best chance for survival of the species.
Guess what? "Survival" implies, requires, the alternative, non-survival, namely, DEATH! In other words, in evolution the best adapted species lived longer, better, healthier, etc, than the less adapted. In addition, adaptations related to predation required animals to kill and consume other animals. However, in the Genesis account, death did not come into the picture until after the fall of man. Pretty disparate I would say. Do you have an explanation?
The truth is thatall attempts I have seen to reconcile evolution and the Bible are pretty lame and require more twisting and bending than the scientific community has done to make the Big Bang theory fit observed phenomena.
Nice try, but to attempt to meld evolution and Genesis is an insult to both the logic of science and the elegance and majesty of the concept of God.
The "Fall" happens before the "shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth" Genesis 2:5. Not on the 6th day, like most people think. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, taken in conjunction, can explain why death existed before humanity appeared.
Sorry, but your opinion raises even more problems that it solves as it put the chronology of Genesis 1 and 2 in direct chronological contention as it is explicitly stated in Genesis 1 that plants were created on the 3rd day of creation. So, tell me: Which is it?
The best and most widely-held reconciliation of the two accounts of creation in Genesis is that Genesis 1 is the chronology of creation (which it obvious and undisputably is!) and that Genesis 2 is a narrative recap not necessarily setting things forth in any particular chronological order. If this is not the case, then there are two conflicting chronologies and one would have to be false, creating dire problems with scriptural reliability.
Given currently held main-stream scientific beliefs, unless you throw out the biblical account and/or alter accepted evolutionary theory to make things fit, no theory that melds evolution and the biblical account of creation can hold up to scrutiny and rational analysis.
I am not debating the possibility of a God-driven evolution. But evolution could not have happened the way the Bible sets things forth! What should be abundantly clear to anyone with a good working knowledge of the Bible and decent a grasp evolutionary theory, and who possesses a rational mind is this: Trying to meld the biblical account and evolution is not a work of faith, it is pure folly!
Actually, my point was to show you the contradiction between the two.
I agree that Genesis 1 is chronological, and works with evolution.
But as for Genesis 2, it seems to be more of a metaphor (talking snakes and trees of "knowledge") than a "narrative recap."
If they re-shot the Passion as a movie with a zombie themed ending would it get more of an audience?
What do you mean? The Jesus myth IS a zombie story. Think about it. He gets killed, comes back to life and stumbles around bothering people. He’s a zombie. To make it even more creepy, his followers eat his flesh.
You all may be joking, but you unwittingly hit a fair theological point.
Matthew 27: 52 – 53 says that after Jesus died, "the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life…and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
As a Christian, I thought the Passion lacked any creativity and imagination.
Zombies?? Jesus brought zombies to town? Now, now THAT’s a story!!! I better read this book. Where’s the fiction section around this bookstore?
Not so long ago the the "church" was in charge and when scientists would say the earth is round, they would be punished.
Now we know the earth is not flat and science has saved us from the idiots.
Currently the discussion is evolution. I am convinced also here science will save us.
For all you religious fanatics: You all should watch the movie "religion" from Bill Maher. Very usefull for the uneducated among us.
The main problem is that evolution is many more times more abhorrent to the theist than a heliocentric solar system or round earth. So given that it took the Roman Catholic Church about 400 years to acknowledge the work of Galileo and apologise for his persecution, this argument will never be fully accepted by the fundamentalists.
P.s. The movie is called Religulous. It’s childish/misrepresentational in parts, but more constructive in others and pretty funny overall.
I believe the movies’ name is "Religulous", apparently a combination of the words: Religion and Ridiculous.
For those brave enought to be enlightened, this movie can be seen in its entirety by using "Google" – "Video" – then "Religulous".
Another interesting site that intelligently comments only on actual Biblical passages is "godisimaginary.com" Caution: Only for those who consider themselves strong in their "faith" or if they are open minded.
Your post is ridiculed with inaccuracies and your obvious hostility towards Christianity. It is pure fabrication to state that there was ever any official view of the Church that the earth was flat or that scientists who held that it was spherical were punished by the Church. There have been Christians from the earliest times who believed in a spherical earth and some others who didn’t. The Bible does not teach a flat earth and that is not its purpose in any event. All of this is a myth by those who seek to discredit Christianity. Wikipedia states: "current historians (late 20th century view typified by historian and religious studies scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell) have asserted that White’s and other writings projecting flat Earth belief upon Christians are inaccurate, citing centuries of theological writings, and suggested the motivations for the promotion of such inaccuracies".
Incidentally, Bill Maher’s ‘movie’ is called "Religulous", not "Religion". It is biassed nonsense, and is "useful" only if you wish to spread false propaganda. He looks for those Christians that he feels are unsophisticated and proceeds to ambush them. His questions are not asked in good faith but his purpose is clearly to catch out some poor soul who is unprepared and make them look foolish. Why didn’t he seek out top Christian thinkers like Ravi Zacharias if he wanted Christian answers to tough questions? This documentary does not appeal to the intellect of the viewer but to the emotion of those with existing antipathies towards religion in general and Christianity in particular. I can see why you found it satisfying.
Ravi Zacharias? Are you serious? Yeah, you are right, he’s a "top Christian thinker" and that shows precisely why your religion is a ridiculous worldview with no basis in reality.
Look, in all seriousness and with no intent to offend, please see that it doesn’t matter if someone defends your religion with a nice vocabulary or not, in a soft tone or screaming like a madman, at the end of the day they have no evidence and no logical arguments. Nada.
You believe what you believe because your mommy told you to believe it and your society reinforces it. That’s it. It’s not because it makes sense. If you were born and raised in ancient Egypt you would be scoffing at those who questioned the divinity of pharoahs and citing top Egyptian thinkers who defended pharoah-god belief.
Question the dogma that was imposed on you as a trusting child. Think for yourself. Try it, It feels good!
It would be amusing to see you in an engagement with Ravi Zecharias.
For someone who is supposed to be rational you make a lot of unwarranted assumptions about others. My faith is based on my own experience and revelation. I had my period of searching, questioning, doubting and reading all sorts of materials in the New Age etc.
Actually, the name of the movie is Religilous.
Let me tell you something, some Christians are so quick to judge someone for how you put it "ridiculing’ religion. You my friend, are very quick to ridicule someone for saying the slightest thing that might aim AGAINST religion, and you are also quick to shove religion back in our faces. I think if you are religious keep it to yourself. please. thanks.
Know your history! Both Copernius and Galileo were Christians!
Where does he say they weren’t Christians? doesn’t mean they had to "tip-toe" around the church all the time in case they church accused them of heresy and tortured and then burnt them to death
the poster made a distinction between the "church" and "scientists" as if they were separate. Galileo and Copernicus prove they were not.
yes, the Church authorities were reluctant to accept their findings (which is natural because they were thinkers ahead of their time), but because Galileo and Copernicus were Christians, it shows that the most forward thinking people of that age were actually Christians!
no offense, both you need to re-examine your understanding of history. you both think Christians are ignorant, yet you hail Christian thinkers as prophets!
The problem with this article is it tries to equate Genesis with a child’s understanding of evolution.
Whales and dolphins. They came from the sea to the land and then went back to the sea.
Turtles. They probably came from the sea to the land, then went back to the sea then came back to the land.
What day were whales, dolphins and turtles created on?
You are losing the forest for the trees. A micro examination of evolution shows that, yes, some animals did leave the water only to return. But from a macro perspective, life evolved from dirt all the way to human beings (no matter the divergences). Badir (and Genesis) seemed to be giving a macro perspective of evolution, rather than micro, and not necessarily a "childish" perspective.
Badir,
Do you fancy explaining resurrection for us scientists?
Once you have done that, have a go at walking on water, raising the dead and the feeding the 5,000 party trick.
The Bible is a bronze age collection of myths, legends, pseudo-science and spiritual teaching. It is a shame the last part, the spiritual, is being undermined by fundamentalists’ dogma holding on to the accuracy of the rest of the nonsense.
Cheers
Lazarus
Er.. actually Lazarus, raising the dead happens even today. Miracles happen all the time. Don’t dismiss as untruths things which you cannot explain scientifically. Have the grace and humility to at least have an open mind.
This is what people of your disposition will never grasp.
1. Scientific thought is as open-minded as it gets. There is incessant competition in the scientific community to improve the pool of knowledge and disprove rival theories and new research. It is ironically, the religious among us who refuse to amend there Bronza Age way of thinking on many matters, who utterly lack open-mindedness
2. If miracles did happen everyday, they basically wouldn’t be miracles. Are natural phenomena, such as electromagentism/earthquakes miracles to you? To the sane world these are somewhat predictable forces of nature that obey universal laws and have a robust, rational explanation that can be verified empircally. Science is the history of dead religions.
The problem is that there was nothing in that post that portrayed scientific thinking. It dismissed things as untrue based on mere prejudice. It is not scientific to dismiss something as untrue simply because you cannot understand or explain it. References to "bronze age myths" may make you feel superior but they do not demonstrate scientific thinking.
Let me get this right, you don’t consider being raised from the dead a miracle? Miracles do happen today. There are documented cases of people who had Stage IV cancer and had been given months to live only to have their their organs completely renewed with no evidence of cancer after a spiritual experience, even as there are documented cases where the dead have been raised. In one case the man had been not only dead but embalmed. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2575536377261580026#
I enjoyed reading your post. Just to clarify, I was not presenting a scientific idea or research, but rather describing briefly some of the principles of the scientific method, from which we have all benefited. I agree that strange, inexplicable events do happen but I return to my comment about science being the history of dead religions. If someone was raised from the dead to the satisfaction of the wider scientific community, then it would fall within the scope of science. For if nothing else, it is the duty of scientists everywhere to bring their intellect to bear on natural events and arrive at coherent, rational explanations. If the scientific determination was divine intervention, then I would go along with that. But it is the alacrity of religious thinking (“Miracles happen all the time”) to attribute many things to God’s action and will, rather than taking the time and energy to apply rigorous, unbiased reasoning, that can taint my responses with condescension (“Bronze Age”). Science has the candour not to claim to know everything. Look at the rival theories surrounding say the fairly recent discovery that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. But no, let’s say “Well, Lazarus rose from the Dead. It’s probably just our Lord diddling with the universe again”. Finally, to return to the original post. We were asked to show more humility. Do you really believe religion is more humble than science? I think they are the antithesis of one another in this regard. I couldn’t put it better than an earlier poster: “Science does not have all the answers and freely admits that. Religion has no answers and lies about that.”
"If the scientific determination was divine intervention, then I would go along with that".
I think that you fail to see the limits of science. Science deals with that which is observable and quantifiable and seeks to offer physical explanations of such phenomena. To the extent that it has no explanations it rests on the faith (and that is what it is) that one day science will have an answer. Scientific analysis will therefore never conclude divine intervention. This coupled with the fact that for many (not all) scientists have an a priori assumption that the supernatural does not exist. I embrace and am thankful for science operating in its proper sphere all the while recognizing and embracing spiritual realities.
"Religion has no answers and lies about that.”
Permit me to make a distinction between "religion" on the one hand and a relationship with the true and living God through his son Jesus Christ on the other. Religion is about observing certain rules of conduct and rituals out of a sense of obligation. It does not change the heart. You are simply dead wrong if you believe that true spirituality offers no answers. For example, medical science simply treats symptoms and manages disease; it cannot cure it because it does not understand the root causes which often are spiritual. There is a spirit, mind, body connection. If your mind continually dwells upon certain negative thoughts e.g. fear, anxiety, hatred (which the Bible calls sins) it will ultimately result in mutation of the cells in your body and produce disease and will also negatively affect your relationships. Certain diseases correlate exactly to particular patterns of thought. When we repent in our hearts (i.e. change our pattern of thinking and think the thoughts the Bible advocates, not simply mouth the words "I repent") our words change, our actions change, our bodies heal and our relationships may be restored. When you see the Bible in that light you understand the heart of love the Father has towards us. His revalation of his will is a wonderful gift to us. I wish I could sit and share with you some testimonies. In any event I’m asking you to think about this.
@ Anonymous 08:14
Thank you for your respectful response.
"Science encompasses everything that is real and exists"… "You say “scientists have an a priori assumption that the supernatural does not exist”. To me, this is a tautology. Anything that does exist is not beyond, at least hypothetically, the understanding of science".
Again your claims for science are too extravagant. Science’s scope is confined to the material. It is the study of the natural world. You are, perhaps subconsciously, equating the material realm with all that exists. There is a supernatural realm which does not yield to the application of scientific methodology which after all was only designed for this realm. For example, it does not mean that because A was praying and standing at point x and received a miracle that everyone who is praying and standing at point x is going to receive a miracle – what you might call a "real, measurable, repeatable phenomenon". There are variables that we cannot even account for including some that do not pertain to this realm.
Attempting to equate spiritual phenomena with placebo effects is very weak indeed. Placebos only have a subjective, therapeutic effect based on the belief of the person that that the placebo would be beneficial. Placebos cannot produce miracles which consist in objective, measurable phenomena for which science cannot account. A placebo will not cure you of Stage IV cancer. It will not regenerate organs and it will not raise anyone from the dead. Miracles sometime occur even when the beneficiary had no expectation of a miracle.
"If the results of observations in the world were to conclude an actual sentient being (let‘s call this being God) existed and controlled events in the universe, then science would accept this".
I am afraid that this is not very convincing. Many eminent scientists, e.g. Albert Einstein, have found evidence of a supreme intelligence in the design of everything from DNA to the cosmos yet this is not embraced by the scientific establishment who insist that there is only the "appearance" of design, and seek to discredit those scientists who embrace it (see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein). That denial is based on a dogmatic insistence that only natural explanations can be scientific. Scientists have their biases too.
Actually I don’t have nagging doubts about other religions and their place in God’s plan, but that is a whole different subject on which much could be said and this is perhaps not the best place to say it.
So, am I correct in assuming, that as science deals involves itself with the mere physical world, Christianity has the real story about the big picture? For science only concerns itself with what ”after all was only designed for this [the supernatural] realm”? Despite the fact you did a pretty good job on my placebo comparison I was disappointed with your playing of the classic theist ‘get out of jail free card’ i.e. ‘it’s God’s plan, who are we to know better’. Is that how you would also refute some of the other classics, like the Problem of Evil? What would you say to the innocents who are being born into unimaginable pain and misery, ravaged by some genetic disorder, on the topic of God’s plan (obviously I am coming at this from a purely metaphysical angle)? I still say that it is intellectually dishonest to leap to the God of the Gaps and deem isolated events as ‘off limits’ to science, in your debate. If we were conversing deep in the period your books were being constructed, you would not have to search very long to come up with convincing evidence of God’s actions. You could just point to the lightning bolts in the sky/the inexplicable disease destroying the next village/the earthquakes, lava flows and you get the picture! As you can probably see, I am skirting around the topic of temporary agnostic in practice.
"A placebo will not cure you of Stage IV cancer."
Do you have proof that a "spiritual experience" can? If you do (or if your sources do), you (or they) should write a dissertation and have it published in a creditable science journal.
Evidently you did not understand my post.
You really can’t have sensible discussion with the brainwashed. Probably indoctrinated as a child, poor thing.
I am someone who has seen the light as an adult. Please explain exactly what was not "sensible" about my post. The fact that you disagree with my views?
Can we start with the bit about "raising the dead being a daily event"? Ridiculous, although it would make Jesus’ zombie routine a bit less special if it were true.
I think you need some remedial classes for reading comprehension. I said that raising the dead happens even today (in modern times). It does. I then said that miracles happen all the time. They do. The purported quotation is of course a misquote.
FYI, there is a difference between raising the dead, e.g. Lazarus, and resurrection – Jesus. in the latter case Jesus had a spiritual body which would never again die. It was no "zombie" routine. That will not be repeated until the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. He is the first fruits of them that sleep.
I gave an example where the dead was raised. There are others. Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."
Ironically, your attempt to ridicule Christianity has made you appear a little ridiculous since you do not even know your subject matter. You still have not explained what is not "sensible" about my post. That seems to mean that you find it incredible. Big difference.
The whole omnipresent omnipotent sky fairy routine is not sensible. You base your whole way of life on the folk stories of the bronze age.
That’s not an argument, its simply a statement of your viewpoint. You do understand the difference, don’t you? Perhaps you think that one only need brandish the term "bronze age" and Christianity is demolished and you are established as a highly intelligent and educated person. Not. Funny how one poster suggests that it is the religious folk who are incapable of reasoning.
"Not"? Really? That is not an argument, it is a hackneyed comedy response from Wayne’s World.
I am highly intelligent and exceptionally well educated. Statisically, these factors tend to greatly increase one’s chance of being an atheist.
My point that the omnipotent sky fairy theory does not make sense is an argument. The Christian postulate simply does not satisfy the logical concept of lex parsimoniae. Christian’s don’t make any real effort to make a case for a sky fairy in terms of reasoned argument. Usually the highest it gets is "the Bible tells us so" which is a tad circular. But that is better than the other tack which is to resort to atrocious pseudo-science.
I have asked many committed Christians to try to make a case for their fairy godfather. But I have never really received a response that led me to think there is any credible basis for the concept as defined in leading mono-theistic religions of Middle Eastern origin.
"I am highly intelligent and exceptionally well educated. Statisically, these factors tend to greatly increase one’s chance of being an atheist".
LOL! I get it now. Being an atheist is cool because people assume that you are highly intelligent and educated!
My own faith is based on my experience and revelation.
Which experience, and which revelation, convinced you?
It is fairly complicated and very personal. Suffice it to say that it had to do with someone operating through the gifts of the Holy Spirit – word of knowledge, discernment and prophecy, healing. In respect of the word of knowledge there was absolutely no way ANYONE could have known and it was absolutely accurate in detail. In respect of prophecy seeing it come to pass in detail, some quickly, while other parts years later. In respect of divine healing experiencing it. It radically changed my life. All of sudden what seemed like a musty old book of doubtful relevance came alive.
There is absolutely not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever in my mind that the supernatural exists.
You’ve got it the wrong way round, mate. You are twisting this poster’s words. You like to do that, don’t you? You seem to be much more interested in scoring points that in honesty.
"That’s not an argument, its [sic] simply a statement of your viewpoint."
I’ve heard that retort before!!
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ
Also available with colourful language (no kids allowed): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck
"Pastor Daniel’s" resurrection is not exactly an airtight case. Do you have any other examples of modern resurrection?
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/bonnke2.html
Also, I am curious: What is meant by a "spiritual body?"
1. The case is very well established by direct testimony from the doctor who pronounced him dead, the death certificate and the mortician who partially embalmed him together with the mortician’s records. See, e.g. http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/pastor-daniel-nneka-ekechukwu-concerning-resurrection
2. Your preferred website does not have any contradictory evidence at all. None. It offers only suspicions. To the suspicious mind everything is suspicious. E.g. it is mightily suspicious that a pastor of a church that Bonnke is involved with (and Bonnke is "involved with" hundreds) is the one that gets raised from the dead!
3. There is no fact which you cannot find disputed by someone on the Internet and my guess is that you personally would not regard the website you cited as credible on any other issue. It would be a fool’s errand to try to find a case which no one disputes.
Re a spiritual body, thefollowing website deals with it succinctly:
http://www.antipas.org/books/instructor/spiritual_body.html
Every now and then I dip into random posts and so I looked at the link you posted.
Here is an extract: "God doesn’t deal with the unrighteous until they are brought before the Great White Throne of judgment, after which they are cast into the lake of fire. That lake is a manifestation of God’s judgment against them, and that is why both hell and Satan himself are ultimately cast there. One could wonder: If hell is God’s domain of punishment, why would He not cast people into hell after their judgment at His Great White Throne, rather than into the lake of fire?"
Ah, the old dilemma, hell or the lake of fire. So many choices, so little time.
Red herring. Please stick to the topic.
As I see it, this post is very much on topic, because the topic is faith. You have to have serious faith to believe the stuff in the example I quoted. If you have that level of faith, there is no shaking it.
I don’t have faith and to me the words I quoted and the concepts behind them are mumble jumble.
Seeking to reconcile these two positions as the author of the article does is a futile exercise, as this thread nicely illustrates.
Well, this post simply highlights the differences between our individual understanding of the term "well-established". Obviously, I disagree that this case is well-established.
Couple of questions:
1. How does one man’s testimony, particularly when it is offered under reasonably suspicious (your word) circumstances, establish fact?
2. Why did the mortician "partially embalm" him? Why partially? Why not just embalm?
I did not say that I was offering contradictory evidence. I have never heard of Pastor Daniel before and spent about two and a half minutes looking for evidence of his claims, as to me that do seem rather incredible — in the traditional sense of that word.
It seems to me that suspicions should almost always be investigated, don’t you agree? It strikes me that one would need to be fairly credulous to believe this tale whole-heartedly without some proof beyond what is offered in the current testimony. I doubt this is a level of proof that would hold up in any court of law, for instance — and I assume you would insist upon proof there, would you not?
Again, though, there is probably no way for us to agree on this point. We simply have different standards of proof in a more general sense.
I didn’t say that the circumstances were suspicious at all. I commented that the site you proffered offered only its own suspicions and that to a suspicious mind all things are suspicious. If you take a moment to read my post carefully you will understand that.
Evidently, the suspicions have been investigated and the case has held.
In what way has it "held"?
The story has been corroborated. No element of has been shown to be false.
It has not been corroborated by anyone besides those directly involved, and they are suspect at best. I don’t know anyone who would believe what this pastor says based on the evidence supplied in the website you posted. No, I do know one person who probably would. I like her, but consider her a flake.
The fact that you feel the case has been proven to be true tells me that there is no point discussing any of this with you any more. Your answers are incomprehensibleto me, and not, as you have arrogantly implied to so many posters here, because I need "remedial reading lessons", have not "read carefully" enough or "obviously do not understand". (Arrogance is not a very Christ-like quality, by the way). I do not comprehend what you say because your answers inevitably drift off into the mysterious and unverifiable — things just are because they are, no one should question anything, and anyone who has different ideas to yours is stupid or has not been blessed with your unfathomable wisdom and insight. Logic that you insist be applied to the theories of others is not required to enlighten your own.
The fact that this has been your response to so many posters suggests to me that you are very young, so your opinions will very likely change on their own, several times.
"It has not been corroborated by anyone except those directly involved"
Clearly any corroboration would have to come from those have direct personal knowledge of the events and from the relevant records. Not sure why you though think you have made a point.
Now you have resorted to ad hominem attacks all the while betraying the very arrogance (and condescension) that you accuse me of. Nowhere have I said that no one should question anything. We agree on one thing – there is no point in continuing this discussion.
I really don’t see any particular downside to having a suspicious mind — though I might use the words "critical" or "questioning" instead. Rather, I see someone who would accept this nonsense as a case that has been "proven" as gullible in the extreme. You have not bothered to answer the reasonable questions posed above.
Having unreasonable suspicions is a recognized mental disorder.
I am satisfied that I have answered the reasonable questions posed.
And who is judging my suspicions unreasonable? You? You will understand that your judgment does not worry me much.
You are resorting to tit for tat now. This was a puerile response and beneath you.
It was not of course a puerile response at all, nor was it tit for tat. It was a direct answer to a question posed by the poster. The poster indicated that they saw no downside to having a suspicious nature. I explained what, in an extreme case, could be a seriousdownside. You have obviously taken personal offence when none was intended.
Enter the witch doctor…
Everyone just back away. There’s no reasoning with those who have rejected reason in favour of incoherent metaphysics. Just step away….
Miracles happen all the time, yes….so I’ve heard. Like in Benny Hinn’s shows, right? I’m curious though…why doesn’t God ever heal amputees? It’s always something invisible. Never an arm or a leg growing back. What does God have against amputees? Do they not suffer enough?
And while God is answering a Western Christian’s prayers about her tennis elbow or his peptic ulcer, why is he ignoring the prayers of those millions of people dying of starvation worldwide? Why does he ignore the prayers of those dying brutally in genocides? Is it only our Western prayers that matter?
Ok, Christians, ok evolutionists, ok deists, ok all you other "ists" who are on this thread to prove that your opinion of cosmology is the absolute and inerrant truth…listen up:
You are all wasting your damn time debating whether the universe was created by a deity or somehow snapped into existence on its own. Regardless of how learned your arguments and regardless of the depth of your reasoning, it is all foolishness because your beliefs are based on theories, unproven dogma or worse, superstition. I fail to see how otherwise intelligent people get seduced into trying to prove the other side wrong and themselves correct.
Here is a fact: Creationism, the Big Bang and evolution, ‘brane and multidimensional space/time theories are no more or no less valid than the faith invested in these unproven concepts by their proponents. No side has a satisfying proof of their belief.
When it comes to creation, both science and religion require a large measure of faith to accept their stories. If you can believein a complex multi-dimensional universe springing into existence, it is no huge step of faith to believe in an eternal Creator. But still there is no proof.
I have my own personal beliefs which I shall not argue here. But this I can say without fear of valid rebuttal: After all the hot air from the religious fanatics has cooled and all the BS from rabid adherents of the Big Bang or other theorists has crumbled back to the dust from whence it came, we will still be left with the question: How did the universe come to be? How did life get to this point?
Your arguments make for an amusing read but the jury is still out and you may as well base your beliefs on a cloud of vapour.
I have my beliefs, you have yours. If you want to believe in a God-creatred world, fine. Just don’t have the ignorant arrogance to give me grief if I do not accept your silly superstition. If you are convinced that a Big Bang is the origin of everything, fine. Just because you hide behind the veil of science, please do not be so stupid as to look down upon me if I do not espouse your tenuously based theories.
Perhaps one day we will have a way of knowing. (Ok, preachers and scientists, don’t start your claptrap and try to tell me we can know now because we cannot "know". We may be won over by what we believe is compelling evidence and thus choose a stance through faith, but that is where it ends. Faith. Period!
In short, this is an argument that cannot be "won" by either side. Why not be bright little candles and choose your battles wisely? The creation vs scientific approach ain’t one of the wise ones, believe me.
Worse yet are lame attempts to meld science and religion. Most such attempts fail miserably and are an insult to both the religious and the rational among us.
Sorry, "Just Laughin’" but you are dead wrong. You state that science and religion both require faith (wrong) and you state that there is no significant difference between creationism and the Big Bang Theory (wrong).
Religion is totally based on dogma, lies, and faith (faith defined as believing something when you have no reason to believe it). Science is based on EVIDENCE and it selfcorrects in the face of new evidence, something religion resists passionately.
Science does not have all the answers and freely admits that.
Religion has no answers and lies about that.
These are very, very different perspectives. Clearly not the same.
Ok, 13:15…
I am supposing you are A.) literate, B. possessed of basic deductive reasoning abilities, and C.) facile in the language in which you write. XXXXXX
While you may define faith as …"believing something when you have no reason to believe it" your definition is absurd to say the least. No one believes something without some causality, some reason. Even the totally delusional psychotic has a reason, which reason might be borne of his insanity, but it is a reason nevertheless.
If you care to research definitions for the word "faith" in the context of "proof" you will find such definitions may be distilled into a simple (correct) one: "Belief in something for which there is no proof." And this, my misinformed friend, this is the commonality between religion and science when it comes to the origin of the cosmos.
In your own words "Science is based on evidence…". Wikipedia: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion." While evidence may be compelling, evidence is not usually a proof in and of itself. To borrow from your wise offerings: These are very, very different concepts. Clearly not the same. OK? With me so far? Good.
If there is sufficient evidence, then those who may be persuaded by that evidence may or may not accept the evidence as sufficient "proof" for a particular "theory". However, belief is subjective and philosophical. (In other words the person persuaded by the evidence has faith of the theory’s veracity and might accept such evidence as "proof". But, one man’s "proof" may be another man’s folly. All depends on their philosophy.
(Who decides when a theory becomes a scientific "fact" anyway?) Please bear in mind that popular acceptance of a theory does not make a theory true. For example if we were having this debate a few centuries ago, you as a wise and vastly intelligent believer in science might be of the firm opinion that the Earth is the centre of the universe. (My how things change!) Yes, science does self-correct in the face of new evidence. In other words, false theories or deficient ones are revised and faith is placed in new ones that are hoped to be true (faith again) by their adherents. (Note the word "theory" and look up what it means, OK?) Oh, just to keep you on your toes: Theories are not "proofs" either. We still good?
The Big Bang theory, once the darling of cosmologists is now coming under some fire as new and more advanced theoretical models emerge. The new models may require us to revise the very definition of the universe, time, space, etc. If you accept the Big Bang theory, then you probably have faith in the existence of a "singularity". No? Nowhere does popular science sound more like faith-based religion than in the concept of the primal Something from which the Universe and Space-Time emerged. Exactly what is this Something? We don’t know. Where did it come from? We don’t know. Why did it appear? We don’t have the foggiest idea. What makes ’em go BANG? We do not know. (Scientist: "But, hey guys we are sure of this: Everything started from this Something! Maybe.") Now THAT is true blind faith! (Not that blind faith is inherently a bad thing.)
Lest someone proposes that I am one the verge of melding science and religion in a God-driven evolutionary model, who is to say that God did not emerge from the Big Bang?
Where you err is to have the silly and quite baseless bent that faith and science are somehow mutually exclusive. Where did you get this idea anyway? In this you are the one who is dead wrong!
Here is the truth: faith is one of the most fundamental elements common to, and essential to, both science and religion. If Copernicus, Fleming, Kepler, Galileo, the Wright Brothers, Newton, Faraday, Boyle, Bacon, Mendel, Goddard, Planck and countless other scientists did not have faith in their theories they would not have pressed on to great discoveries. (Oh darn…lest we neglect religion, would you care to do some research and comment here on how many of the aforementioned scientists believed in God?)
I write this not to uphold religion but to make a point. Great men of science and great men of religion are also great men of faith. Often they are men of religious faith as well, but for the sake of this engagement, that is beside the point.
You seem a bit touchy about religion, deeming it inflexible and not amenable to change. In this you are, again, wrong. Evolved believers in Jehovah God no longer burn witches, stone unruly sons, burn animals for sacrifice, or consider the Pope’s ex cathedra edicts to be divine and unerring. (Whoops! OK, on that last one I admit that some religious ignorance does not change. But you see what I am getting at. No?)
While I am no lover of organised religion and consider most of what today’s churches do to be based on spooky superstition, ignorance and a love of power, I prefer rational argument if you must bash the Churchites.
You state that "Religion is totally based on dogma, lies, and faith…" Again, (sigh) you are wrong. Should you care to do some rational critical research on the Bible, Koran, Torah, and other religious writings you will find that most religions are based in part in actual history and all have some rational moments and are not all just a bunch of lies.
Hopefully you have gained an education on the meaning of "faith" for you possess faith although you may not even know it. You have faith that your scientific and religious beliefs are sound. You have faith that your next meal will not be poisoned. Lots of stuff you do is based on faith in the evidence at hand.
(And you had faith that when your wrote your comment that I would be proven ("dead") wrong. Heck, you did not even provide any credible evidence much less proof.)
So, Einstein, what does your science tell you about the origins of this universe? How did it come to be? Inquiring minds want to know as the Big Bang theory is not one of origins but merely a time-line of the emerging cosmos.
There was no origin of the universe it as existed for infinite, no please prove how that beleive is an different from yours
I am sorry but this is just a very fine example of ranting.
Scientific ‘theories’ do indeed have Proof! You clearly do not understand what science is or the nature of their ‘theories’ – it is a philosophical fact that there are no absolute proofs on an experiential level because it would require testing every possible permutation of the proposal throughout time and that cannot be done – it could lead to scepticism, as indeed, philosophically it has done – that’s why mathematicians feel so superior about proof – lol – but IN REALITY, we all have different lives because of these scientific theories because they are TRUE. The radiation of the Big Bang is detectable; the ever expanding universe as a result of an atomic-type explosion is visible – and let’s face it, we have microwave ovens as a result of this discovery – lol. And more besides…For the proof of evolution just look up micro evolutionary synthesis on google – it would take too long to go into here.
But these scientific truths do not disprove God – that would be reductionist.
And I applaud the original commentator for trying to find a theistic evolutionist response because that is where his faith is. Live and let live Just Laughin cos your response is pretty disrespectful and most of all you do not have proof that God does not create using the Big bang and evolution and that non-scientific humans, 1000s of years ago, were not inspired to write an allegory that unwittingly embraces scientific truths.
Ahhh…Cayman Heretic…
In your zeal to draw blood from a clever rebuttal you lost sight of the pivotal word "faith" and majored on the minors, "proof", and on somehow delving into the futile and proving me wrong. We shall see that your faith in science is probably even more childlike than many Christians relative to their Deity.
I was not really ranting before, but now that you have raised my hackles with your irrational mindset and utterly miserable grasp of science and history, I might rant… just a wee a little bit. Your posting is just a very fine example of a deficiency in critical thinking skills coupled with some pretty shallow scientific knowledge. Or, shall we say, yours is merely a more impassioned rant? (You out-ranted me…darn!)
You wasted a considerable amount of time proving nothing. But thanks for lending a fair amount of evidence to my original moot (which you apparently did not get). The (thus far) irrefutable truth is that in regard to the origin of the cosmos, both science and religion require a good measure of faith on the part of their proponents and it is pointless to argue.
Here is something for ya: The origin (note that word, "origin") of the Universe cannot be scientifically theorised by our current physics and mathematics. True or false? C’mon, hazard a guess.
You get a bit sketchy in your reasoning, dude, e.g.: What scientific theories are you referring to when you say "…we all have different lives because of these scientific theories because they are TRUE"? Which theories are true? The Big Bang theory? The theory that the earth is the center of the universe? The theory that your life’s origin was a homunculus? Einstein’s static-spacetime model? The Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime concept on which the Big Bang is based? Newtonian physics? Einsteinian relativistic theory?
All these theories had or have "proof" and people had or have faith that they were or are "TRUE" as you describe Truth. Some are now taken to have been false. Gee, wonder what happened to all those like you who consider the body of popularly accepted science to be the Absolute Truth when they found that no little homounculus existed?
It sounds like you place a lot of credence in the Big Bang theory. Is this what you believe? That would be bad enough, but you seem to imply the absolutely erroneous idea that the discovery of the Background Microwave Radiation (BMR) – which bolstered the "Big Bang" theory – resulted in microwave ovens!? Where did you get that? ( If this is any indication of your grasp of science and history, I would say you are a bit out of your league here and dismiss you with a mere sigh, but I have more ranting to get off my chest in regard to your reckless comments.
Before we address the astrophysics of the matter, let’s provide you with a bit of more mundane education in history first: The Microwave Oven was an offshoot of research by a scientist from the Raytheon Corporation trying to further develop a military application. The first commercial oven hit the market about 1947, about the time WWII was coming to a climax.
The Microwave Background Radiation was not theoretically predicted until 1948 by Alpher, Gamow and Herman. A uniform background microwave signature was not reported until 1955. And it was not until 1964 that the MBR was interpreted to be a signature of the Big Bang by astronomers Penzias and Wilson. Truth: The Microwave Oven was not a result of Big Bang research or MBR theory! About the only thing they have in common is they both involve microwaves. I guess you got confused, huh?)
As for the Background Microwave Radiation somehow proving the Big Bang Theory: far from being a "proof" of any single cosmological theory the MBR distribution plays a part in several distinct cosmological theories. My big problem with the BB theory is that the theory relies on the invention of underpinning theories and the invention of forms of matter/energy which have yet to proven to any reliable degree. Then there is the baryon density enigma and the mystery of non-conforming large scale structures. I have my (current) favourite theory involving plasma dynamics, but to argue it here would be pointless. (But, my friend, you need to keep posted on this so you can be on the bandwagon and don’t get left holding any dusty old outdated cosmic concepts in coming decades.)
Now for the lesson in astrophysics since you seem to value scientific knowledge: The Big Bang model does not even remotely resemble what you refer to as an "atomic-type explosion". The Big Bang is represented as an expansion or inflation of… …of… well…. of…Something. (I capitalised it to make it seem more spooky and mysterious – kinda like what most religions tend to do with their superstitions). The BB was absolutely not an analogue of an atomic explosion of primal stuff expanding in space – to put it in a way you might understand: in the instant of the Big Bang, Space itself expanded. (Riddle me this my learned friend (if you can): What did space expand into ? C’mon, hazard a guess if you don’t know. Your reference to the "ever-expanding" universe is at odds with some postulates of the Big Bang. More on that if you wish later.
Now here is the irony in your submission: You seem to hold to the BB theory, but you apparently have no real intellectual grasp of what you espouse. Hmmm…?? Guess what I call that? F-A-I-T-H Yup. BIG time faith! You believe something even though you know very little about it’s postulates, history, and "proofs". But you are not alone: Scientists have faith in the Big Bang theory even though it is tenuously based on numerous other even less well supported theories. Just about every time a hole is punched into the BB theory they plug it with even more fairy-tales. Several underpinning hypotheses relating to the Big Bang have been shown to be impossible, yet the theory is so well-entrenched in those who believe it that these errors are simply dismissed because of widespread faith in the BB theory.
Finally, here is the kicker from a scientific standpoint: The Big Bang Theory was never, and is not now, a theory of theorigin of the Universe! It explains the "birth" but not the ancestry. In fact there is no credible model of things earlier than after the "Something" went BANG! The origin lies in such things as the mystery of The Singularity. (Where did it come from?) The BB theory is a model to explain what happened after the instant Something began its expansion. But due to the horizon limits imposed by our present science we may never have enlightenment as to the mystery. Perhaps the matter is too complex for the human mind to ever conjure up a model.
Ok, one last observation: You state "But these scientific truths do not disprove God – that would be reductionist". Your statement is wishful thinking, nothing more. It may or may not hold true depending on your set of "truths" and your definition of "God". Right? Ah, now we delve into the realm of Philosophy and Logic, some of my favourite stuff! (But I do give you five "Big Word Points" for "reductionist"! –grin–
Contrary to your incorrect implication that I would try to prove or disprove that God exists or used evolution. That is beside the point of my comment.
Ok, Mr. Scientist, my case is closed and I am getting outta here. Thanks! You did a very good job of assisting me with arguing the moot that science and religion have a good measure of faith as their substance: you have proven to be a splendid example of Sciencefaith. (And a good example that some people should choose their battles more wisely and the damn pointlessness of it all. Hint, hint.)
So, as I depart and leave your comments in the cosmic dust (where they belong) I still see from you no refutation of the fact that – as far as the origin of the universe is concerned – faith is an important substance of both science and religion and that to debate a matter of faith is a rather pointless battle.
EPILOGUE:
Now, Mr. Cayman Heretic, if my postulations are correct I may have sent you digging in to researching how you could have been so wrong about what you wrote; because you were so sure you were right when you wrote them. Right? This brings us to another reason for my contributing to the comments here: To get people with closed minds to open them, and to provide education to those who need the light of knowledge shone inside their cranium. Imagine this: By reading what I wrote you learned something today, stuff about astrophysics, science and history. (So probably did a good number of readers.) Which is more than I can say about reading your…er…rant.
Sign me: "Still Laughin’"
Wow. That was pretty impressive.
I wish I could say you make me laugh, you don’t, you make me very sad. I bow to your superior scientific knowledge and thank you for enlightening my ignorance but may I politely suggest you are very rude. Most of all, in your continued ranting, you miss my point, live and let live and yes, all is faith, beyond mathematics. I was agreeing with you in regard to science and religion and was not trying to prove you wrong rather trying to get you to be a little less rude. Clearly I failed miserably. I will not attempt to justify my position as a theological evolutionist with you as a) you clearly think only your way is the right way and every one else is not entitled to a viewpoint and b) the logic for theism and science as a way to discover knowledge and truth about the world does not require anyone’s approval, not even yours, for as we said all is faith. As for critical thinking skills, you mostly excel in the argumentum ad hominem as your thinly, no not, veiled sarcasm demonstrates. What is there left to say:Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and as far as is possible, be at peace with those you meet…
Thank you poster, I feel a little less lonely now. I whole-heartedly share your pov.
"(Ok, preachers and scientists, don’t start your claptrap and try to tell me we can know now because we cannot "know". We may be won over by what we believe is compelling evidence and thus choose a stance through faith, but that is where it ends. Faith. Period!".
Perhaps you need to understand what Christian faith is. Christian faith comes by revelation; it is not merely "choosing a stance". Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen".
Badir…. The article you wrote is really interesting. However, there are some conflicting theories between "Evolution" – which scientists have proven and "Christianity" – specifically the King James Version which man has written. There are evidence that life existed a long time before the Bible was supposedly written. We can see evidence of Dinosaurs and Pre-historic Man. Are you stating that this may have falsified by scientists who wanted to be recognized and praised?
One of the writers indicated that there are also stories written in the Koran and Allah which addresses one true god. Because Christianity, which is believed by most, was written by the Romans (i stand corrected) and who had influences in most cultures, have the highest number of believers, it is believed to be the one and only religion. Will those people be condemned for their beliefs???
Another writer wrote that Life is what it is Life. We, as complex individuals, have free will to make decisions as we see fit. God would not have given us free-thinking to have us prescribe to his teachings and only his teachings. Life is given and taken in an instant. Why do we have people born deformed? is this his image? Also, why would God state that there should be male and female, when He himself has not gender? Or is he a hermaphrodite?
The article written above is definitely debatable, not from only Christianity and Scientific point of view, but why Life has evolved from living to explaining existence.
atheists and agnostics are not the same!
and I cannot figure out what possessed you to write this! i hope it was to convince "people" that stores should be open on Sunday so I can go get some groceries if I run out of something.
Despite the fact that I feel this is trolling I will throw this out.
Your theory fails when it comes to timing elements.
The bible says a day in the life of God is like a thousand in the life of man not 100,000. The "creation" would have therefore taken only 7,000 years not 500,000.
What about the fact he only created ADAM and EVE?
You’re thinking is too simplistic, Dred. The Bible contains allegory. Many Christians and Jews, both early and modern, have interpreted much of Genesis allegorically. Hence, a day need not refer to a 24 hour period or to a 1,000 years. Here are St. Augustine’s thoughts on the subject:
"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6)
1,000 years may be used as figure of speech for a very long time. It obviously should not be taken literally so that every time "day" is mentioned in the Bible it is really referring to 1,000 years. It is statement that recognizes that from the perspective of eternity that a period that the Lord sees as short we may think of as long.
Im just gonna leave this here;
On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin ofa dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special EducationUniversity of Virginia
PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)
Badir
I believe in God, but it is based off of REASON and MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. My view of God is not adopted by some religious faith or someone’s else revelation or personal testimony. I take it that if I follow someone’s else revelation… I am following hearsay. I am not being true to myself. I am being a follower and not a leader.
I believe God has gifted me with enough attributes and endowments as to discern right from wrong and realize the spiritual side of things. I don’t believe we need ministers to help us or tell us what is truth… we can help ourselves and truth can be found within ourselves.
The Christian concept of God is just like that… a mere concept, a mental construct. People who adopt a christian belief for the mere sake of believing its true – not by rational explanation or their own personal revelation, are people who are not true to themselves. Sorry, but that is the way it is!
Badir, you are trying to mix your fantasy world of Christianity with Science and Reality. Good Luck! It is like saying God is like the Christian God when Creation and life… protrays God differently
🙂
Peace
Kingsley O.T.
I to believe in God, but not organised religions,for thousands of years religion has caused war’s and still continues to do so, it also divides people in there community, stirs up hate for anyone who may be a little different in there thinking. Jesus was Murdered in name of religion.
You said it all Kingsley O. T.
To not follow Church authority and to follow your own mind, is treading on dangerous grounds. Ministers and Pastors have a calling. God appoints and anoints people in positions for certain reasons. Kingsley should be humbled and give his heart and MIND to Christ.
Reply to 16/10/20 07.29
"Ministers and pastors have a calling"? oh yer ! you mean like the Rev Jim Jones? I rest my case. I will follow the light within me, the great spirit resides in us all, church authority? Pah!
You sound like a Humanist or someone influenced by the eastern religions such like Hinduism and Buddhism. May I remind you of Satan’s first lie to Adam and Eve – "Ye shall be as gods"
Humanism is dangerous because it causes people to rely in themselves and not in aSupreme God and his appointed messengers. How do you know that this "great spirit" which resides in you is not Satan. The Bible says he appears as an "angel of light."
Ha! So tell me, if the Spirit of Mother nature, that great light tells you to kill someone who is innocent, I guess it is coming from God and you will just have to do it? There are alot of people who are following their inner selves and committing atrocities.
20.10.2010 09.37
The great spirit created man and gave him the power of chioce.
There are a lot of people following their religious leaders — Christian ones included — and committing atrocities. This is a sad fact of our human nature and has nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of a "Supreme God", whatever that might be.
No… I disagree.
If they were following their inner selves,THEY WOULDN’T COMMIT ATROCITIES.
Atrocities are committed from IRRATIONAL THINKING, like a false religious belief. Your "thinking self" has nothing to do with your "inner self." Your inner self is pure and undefiled, connect to the Supreme Being.
Don’t confuse the two!
I think you have proved the case against yourself. The Rev. Jones was the leader of a cult. No doubt he was following the ‘light’ that was within him while ridiculing Christianity.
21/10/201- 17.39
Twaddle, but am bored with this subject now. it’s been flogged to death, so,am movin on "tat tar".
Trying to argue with "non-believers" over the creation theory is pointless. The first books of the Old Testament were written for the benefit of a largely illiterate and nomadic people. It is the books of the New Testament that concern the Christian. Although Christ referred to the prophet Isiah and to Moses the real message of Christianity is contained entirely within the New Testament.
If you doubt this read the books Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and then Acts. Illuminating
It is a shame that the Kansas School Board, Republicans and many others seem to think that it is a whole package.
"…written for the benefit of the illiterate"
Um…
Uh-h-h, the books, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John do not even agree on who and how many men and/or women were at the tomb of Jesus after his "resurrection". Not a good start for factual enlightenment.
Genesis = Gene of Isis (the ideal mother)
The Creation of MAN, should never be missconstrued with CREATION of the Universes.
The Reptilian\\Elohim genetic scientists (pretender gods), created MAN {as a slave} in their image via the intermixing of their own GENEtic material with the earth-creature monkey. (Look at the Cadecus-The Symbol of Medicine; the intertwining snakes- representing the DNA strand; embracing the winged ROD of the flying gods.)
GENE(of I)SIS 6 states that:
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children unto them. Those were the mighty men of old, men of renown."
This signaled establishment of the Blue Blood (Rhesus Negative blood) god-Kings and the Dynastic nature of the ROYAL-hood; to which Jesus himself belongs, also known as, the Line or Order of (the) Melchizadek.
GENE(of I)SIS 14
"And (the) Melchizedek, the Kings of Salem, the Priests of the Most High Gods, brought Abram some bread and wine."
Images of (the) Melchizadek here.
http://www.google.com/images?q=Melchizedek.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=fb-3TPuVCoO88gb_xbHACQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQsAQwBA&biw=1280&bih=666
Hey Badir, if those seven days mentioned in Genesis are not to be taken as literal 24-hour days, then maybe all that stuff about virgin births, rising from the dead, heaven, hell, and so on are not to be taken literally either. What ya think?
Seriously, I’m curious, how are you able to know which parts of the Bible are real and which parts are just symbolic?
whichever suits him to make his point….
I am sitting on both sides of the fence so to speak. I am a scientist and a christian.
This begining of man will always be a contesting point between Scientist and Christians. The scientist tells you that man is much older than stated in the bible. I believe that you can come up with roughly how long ago Adam lived from the Bible itself. We do know that earth is much older than time suggested by the Bible if read as is.
I do understand the authors point here and certainly is points us towards a possible answer that both may be right. My problems is that scientist tells you man is quite old but these initial men were non thinking and ended as neanderthals. Somewhere around 40,000 BC the thinking man arrives. This is a big problem for me. The scientist explanation is for a gradual evolution yet this modern man arrival seems rather sudden and does not explain why.
You wrote: "these initial men were non thinking and ended as neanderthals"
I wrote: Huh?
What in the world are you suggesting? Neanderthals were highly complex thinkers. So too was Homo erectus who made tools, built shelters, used fire, and was clearly smart enough to thrive in diverse and challenging environments in Africa, Europe, and Asia. Even Australopithecus was capable of complex thought–no doubt. Look at a chimp today. They are very intelligent and Australopithecenes were probably smarter.
Anatomically modern humans have been around for more than 100,000 years. The Great Leap Forward is what I think you are referring to. That is when modern human culture "exploded" with art, tool making, and eventually agriculture and pastoralism. It was probably due to a relatively rapid advance of spoken language but no one knows for sure. What we can say with certainty is that there is no evidence to support the claim that a supernatural being snapped his fingers and lifted us out of the jungle or whatever. It may have happened, sure, but there is zero evidence for such a claim. And until there is, it is silly to believe it.
By the way, there is now very good evidence that our ancestors mated with Neanderthals. That exchange of genes means they didn’t really go extinct but are still here with us–in us.
Actually Mr Ebony Ebanks scientist seperates man into Homo Sapiens or neanderthals that go back to around 500,000 years while Homo Sapiens Sapiens or modern humans like you and I first originated on the Earth around 50,000 years ago in Africa.
There was a time when both existed at the same time and yes there is now even evidence that suggestedthat there was sex between the two.
However the point about the intelligence of the neanderthals is in question. With regards to any evidence that they used metal products was shot down by scientist who suggests that these products were taken from the thinking humans. At the very least the thinking human was significantly more advanced in mental capacity.
My contention is that this 50,000 years ago is not too far from the Christian story. Now what truely happened 50,000 years ago is really unresolved. I dont believe that any alians came or anything but something happened.
PS Whether Christians will admit it or not, God sometimes carry out his work within the laws of nature itself. There are events that occur the scientist finds a reason for but the Christian sees things a bit differently.
When you begin reading the Bible with an open-mind (not to judge whether it is right, wrong, real or fake) it begins to reveal itself to you. You learn to know what is symbolic and what is to be taken literally.
It is amazing how a document which was written over 2,000 years ago can have so much appeal and even advice on how to live your life! B-I-B-L-E (Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth!)
You live your life according to how God created humans to live and that is not the way "Christians" proclaim we HAVE to live (long skirts, no make-up, no drinking etc). The Bible itself is not "religious" neither is God or Jesus, the real religion is to live your life according to the Bible and how God wanted us to live and there is no religious denomination that correctly establishes that!
In fact, when you read the Bible properly and for your own understanding you will realize it is quite the contrary! Psalms 104 tells us "God gave wine to make glad the heart of man" or something like that, it says nothing that we cannot drink but it warns that "wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging" which means you should not drink excessively and get drunk out of your mind!
Also, churches these days insist that we must be "Baptised" when John the Baptist clearly states that "I baptise you with water, but He who comes after, will baptise you in the HolySpirit" when he spoke of Jesus, which means that from the time Jesus was crucified there is no need for batism, only for total dedication of your life to God.
The Bible is "the Book of Life" it tells you how to live your life, kind of like a guideline to being human. It tells you how to raise your kids, how to punish your kids, how to be a good wife (in fact women, it is a sin to deny your husband intercourse (and vice versa) when he requests it!), it tells you how to handle grief, bad neighbors and relatives, sickness, marraige etc etc etc.
"Also, churches these days insist that we must be "Baptised" when John the Baptist clearly states that "I baptise you with water, but He who comes after, will baptise you in the Holy Spirit" when he spoke of Jesus, which means that from the time Jesus was crucified there is no need for batism, only for total dedication of your life to God".
The rest of your post is pretty much correct but I am afraid the above quote is completely off. You should read your Bible thorougly.
1. Jesus’s own disciples baptised his followers.
John 4:1,2 "The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples"
2. The early church urged repentance and baptism and baptised believers.
Acts 2:38: "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".
3. The Apostle Paul teaches that for believers that there was difference between Christian baptism and John’s baptism
Acts 19:3-5: "So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John’s baptism," they replied.Paul said, "John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
When you begin reading the Bible with an open-mind (not to judge whether it is right, wrong, real or fake) it begins to reveal itself to you. You learn to know what is symbolic and what is to be taken literally.
It is amazing how a document which was written over 2,000 years ago can have so much appeal and even advice on how to live your life! B-I-B-L-E (Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth!)
You live your life according to how God created humans to live and that is not the way "Christians" proclaim we HAVE to live (long skirts, no make-up, no drinking etc). The Bible itself is not "religious" neither is God or Jesus, the real religion is to live your life according to the Bible and how God wanted us to live and there is no religious denomination that correctly establishes that!
In fact, when you read the Bible properly and for your own understanding you will realize it is quite the contrary! Psalms 104 tells us "God gave wine to make glad the heart of man" or something like that, it says nothing that we cannot drink but it warns that "wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging" which means you should not drink excessively and get drunk out of your mind!
Also, churches these days insist that we must be "Baptised" when John the Baptist clearly states that "I baptise you with water, but He who comes after, will baptise you in the Holy Spirit" when he spoke of Jesus, which means that from the timeJesus was crucified there is no need for batism, only for total dedication of your life to God.
The Bible is "the Book of Life" it tells you how to live your life, kind of like a guideline to being human. It tells you how to raise your kids, how to punish your kids, how to be a good wife (in fact women, it is a sin to deny your husband intercourse (and vice versa) when he requests it!), it tells you how to handle grief, bad neighbors and relatives, sickness, marraige etc etc etc.
You don’t know how to tell them apart?! Let me tell you. The bits that are falsified by science are co-incidentally and mysteriously then viewed as allegorical by religion. Sometimes there is a time lag (of as much as 400 years when it comes to the 20th century papal apology for the persecution of Galileo for having the gaul to posit at heliocentric solar system). How about the now widespread acceptance of modern germ theory that could be attributed to the wrath of God in pre-Victorian times? How about Creationism before the publication of the Origin of Species? How about the proposed date of the creation of universe before radio metric dating and the discovery of red shift by Hubble? And the list goes on. But no, let’s not arrive at the sensible conclusion that maybe Man who wrote the bible is flawed in his Bronze-age thinking, but instead that it was allegorical all along, never to be taken literally.
To cherry pick like this is both intellectually and theologically bankrupt. It is the worst of both worlds. At least the fundamentalists actually stick to their guns, as it were.
So it’s just a coincidence that the Genesis bronzed-aged account of the creation of the universe is surprisingly similar to the theory of evolution?
It’s not similar at all! You (and Badir) are simply trying to rationalize 2000 year old thinking with post-Darwinian science. Badir’s commentary was so rife with inaccuracies that he has managed to alienate both the hard-line Christians who will never accept evolution and natural selection as sound science, and the clear minded individuals who understand the science and can plainly see the scrambling rationalization of Badir et al.
They are completely different. But even if you thought they were similar, it is clear that that WOULD be a coincidence, as this knowledge was not known then. If you’re trying to say that the authors of the bible knew about evolution and are trying to hint at it, then this is also ridiculous. Where are the allusions to the electricity that is so central the modern life? Where is there mention of DNA, the underlying structure than unifying all life from bacteria to complex mammals? Nowhere to be seen. The ydidn;t even put the earth at the centre of the solar system. Religion is endlessly fascinating to me as it is man’s first attempt to understand the world. But religion ends where philosophy and science begin, just like alchemy ends where chemistry begins. It should have no place in modern life.
"If you’re trying to say that the authors of the bible knew about evolution and are trying to hint at it, then this is also ridiculous".
The author of the bible is God. So yes, he would know about evolution. But all that is besides the point: the Bible is not intended to be a scientific treatise and so it says absolutely nothing about its truthfulness if it does not mention electricity or DNA.
I believe that there is ample evidence to suggests that the Bible and indeed many other "religious" documentation does contain some scientifically and historically psuedo-truths interspersed with myth, folklore, conjecture etc. (Indeed, it can be said that myth and folklore many times serve as repositories of record for actual events that took place in times past).One possible reason given by some authorities for this seeming scientific validity is, that the possibility certainly exists that, we were not the first "advanced civilization" who have managed to unravel some of the mysteries of the universe. (From our own modern experience, we know just how fast knowledge/technology can increase, as it were, in a few hundred/thousands of years, and the earth is estimated to be billions of years old!! ) However, these(?) previous civilizations were largely destroyed by cataclysmic natural events/forces, with only small remnants of populations surviving the ordeal, with only commensurate small remnants of esoteric information surviving also. I say this, like Badir, because I too believe I have detected a loose parallel between what is described in Genesis as the chronological sequence of "events" on earth/in the universe. I also believe in a Creator being, but also accept the evolution theory as a possible/plausible answer as to "how" the Creator "let" the sequence of events take place.
Both the Bible(theology) and Scientific research are attempting to find/give answers to the questions of "how" and "why" we are "here" in the first place, and as such, because of the nature and enormity of these questions, the research and debates will/must continue ad infinitum, just as the universe in which we live and are an integral part of, seems to be doing…
Not true. The creation story for example has been interpreted by some early Christians and Jews as allegorical many centuries before there was any theory of evolution or study of geology.
You make half of a good point.
Scriptures from all religions are a collection of stories, poems, allegories, prophecies and theology – nothing they contain is purely historical – not even the Gospels of Jesus Christ – they too are theological documents and speak of beliefs as much as they do events.
Muslims make errors when they literalise as do fundamentalist Christians.
Everyone who confesses to a faith needs to discover truth in its right context – scientific truth is not in the Bible or the Qur’an or any other Scripture. Commands to kill others in the name of God, to donate loads of money to a religious institution so that you can become rich, to exclude and condemn other lifestyles from your own is diabolical literalism. God is love; God sides with the poor and disaffected; God created all with equal human dignity to be in relationship with Him. Read the whole of the Scriptures and stop cherry picking.
Science merely serves to confirm the vastness of God, for the simple fact that it is so limited in its understanding. There is a difference between the notion of macro and micro evolution (look it up). Species do not become other species, they only adapt within species. Your statements are both unlikely and far-fetched to say the least.
Louis, you know nothing about evolution. Read a science book and stop listening to preachers.
You’re wrong – there is not a difference between macro and micro evolution. The terms are avoided in the scientific community. The terms are only used by those who would like to rebuke evolution but still take the good drugs. The HIV cocktail, new antibiotics for antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria – all acceptable cases of evolution.
I’ll also throw another one at you – try and define a species 🙂
"This is why the universe moves towards higher forms of life and consciousness: God is attracting it. Over millions of years, God has lifted from the depths of nothing the magnificent living structure of the biosphere, with the intention of uniting it to Himself.
Sounds like God has far too much time on his hands.
He needs a mortgage, wife and children to contend with on a daily basis – perhaps then he wouldn’t be so keen to play this "wait and see" game that he has embarked upon.
Furthermore, doesn’t he already know everything that will come to pass?
Doesn’t really make a lot of sense for Him to be "attracting the universe" at this snail’s pace – he already knows the final details of the final page. In the meantime thousands of children are starving and dying of thirst and hunger the world over on a daily basis.
Very interesting.
I wonder if he plays us on an Xbox … this life sounds a bit like GTA or one of the many other graphic, bloody and violent video games!?
*One last thing … there is NO WAY that "woman" was created from "man" – not with the never-ending stress that they bring into a man’s life! Surely if this notion was true the sexes would be a bit more compatible – no?*
:o)
"One last thing … there is NO WAY that "woman" was created from "man" – not with the never-ending stress that they bring into a man’s life! Surely if this notion was true the sexes would be a bit more compatible – no?".
All due to the entry of sin.
ok…
So you say 7 Days are not 7 literal days… hmmm…
Where did you find that in the Bible???
And why is it then that all of Christianity has taken the 7 Days to mean 7 literal days???
Badir, in your attempts to conjoin science with religious belief, in your attempts to defend irrational christian adherents, I am sorry to say… but your 7-DAY THEORY is based on wishful thinking. Perhaps you need to show the rest of Christianity, the proof that 7 days are NOT meaning 7 literal days.
It is obvious in the Bible that 7 days are not literal days, but meaning years. I don’t have to prove it – it is obvious! And that is my belief! Thatis what the Jehovah Witnesses say, and that is what my Pastor says too.
My friend, it is either you believe it or you don’t!
Yes 7 days are not necessarily 7 literal days – anyone read Hebrew?
Yom – ‘day’ is also ‘an unspecified period of time’
This is the trouble with translations
The Muslims grasped that problem at least with an insistence on the Arabic of the Qur’an being the inerrant version so you learn arabic to read it.
Of course, Muslim capacity for hermeneutical error is just as prevalent as is Christian error. All religious claims to absolute versions of the truth are fatally flawed. One wonders, if God exists, that like the tower of Bable to thwart the pride of humankind in being able to reach God and be God is the same reason for so many divine revelations.
Be humble and know that I am God – we know nothing except enculturated experiential human accounts of a divine encounter. The rest is faith, to live right, wait and see.
The singularity concept, derived from logical extrapolation of Hubble’s data, is largely rejected by the majority of leading cosmologists today. Personally I prefer the brane collision model of Turok.
But the larger point is that there is a significant and insurmountable inconsistency between the Bible and science. The big problem is that each of the "days" in Genesis involves the intervention of a theistic god. Science can explain everything from the second yoctosecond of this universe onwards without the need for any involvement by a god. That might (depending on the singularity issue), allow room for a deistic deity, but Christianity and deistic model are incompatible.
Aside from that you have the problem with Noah and his ark. Unless you are going to say that this story (also part of Genesis) is fictional too, all your work on trying to explain away the first few sentences of the Bible is for nought.
There is a big difference between fictional and allegorical my friend.
The Bible is poetical, and like almost all poetry, it can be read allegorically.
You sayin’ the animals did go two by two into the ark?
"Science can explain everything from the second yoctosecond of this universe onwards without the need for any involvement by a god".
If you really believe that then you are truly deceived and do not have any real knowledge or understanding of science. Perhaps it is an expression of FAITH that one day science will.
The excellent example of DNA has already been given as science cannot explain its existence without a superior intelligence.
In terms of the fossil record, science cannot explain the Cambrian explosion by descent from a common ancestor through the process of natural selection.
There are many others. Your bluster might sound impressive but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Nice try, Badir. While I certainly wish more Christians leaned your way, I still find your conclusions all wrong. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that confirms or even vaguely supports the extraordinary claim that a god impregnated a virgin who then gave birth to the god’s son who (somehow) also happend to be the god himself, had magical abilities, and now watches over us and listens to our prayers.
In fact, nothing in science supports these core claims of Christianity.
Yes, science has not disproved these claims. But how could it? Science also has not disproved the existence of ghosts and elves. It is impossible to disprove invisible things that probably aren’t even there. All we can do is wait for those who claim they are real to produce the evidence. In two thousand years Christians have failed to produce compellling evidence or arguments to support their claims. Therefore, the sensible conclusion is that Christianity is most likely just another ancient myth with no basis for its claims of supernatural events and beings.
Without nitpicking every point, I’ll just say that the case you made could be made in the same manner for Islam or Hinduism, for example. Yet Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are contradictory religions that cannot all be true. Only one or none can be true. So, in your view, how does evolution confirm the Bible and Jesus as a god while not confirming the Koran and Allah as the one true god who had no son?
You seem like a thoughtful and sincere person who is trying to have it both ways. You want to be rational and have a sensible respect for science while simultaneously defending an irrational bronze-age myth. You are conflicted. As a trusting child you may have found comfort in the fairy tales but now, as a thinking adult, you find it a challenge to balance fantasy with reality.
Just let go of themyths and embrace reason. Try it, Badir, you will feel much better.
–Ezekiel 23:20
Elves can be seen, are supposedly tangible, and can be proven not to exist( using the popular version per Lords of the Rings ). Using reason, people with pointed ears, long lives, and a fetish for fixing peoples shoes do have almost insignificant possibility of existence. If you believe that the universe(or multiverse) is infinite, and no omnipotent God, they do exist.
Science was designed to study the physical universe, not the intangible. Hence I can’t prove something is conscious, even myself. To perceive everything only through what is based on the scientific method would be to limit yourself.
Very well said Badir!!
I aggree with you that the Bible, specifically Genesis in this instance, should be read allegorically. If we approach The Book as a literal historic account, similar to our school history books, it would be like reading Aesop’s fables and thinking that the message is to hate rabbits and praise turtles.
This is one mate trying to spread his twisted views by trying to harmonize ‘christianity’ and ‘evolution’. To me this is bloody rubbish.
Evolution states that Human beings (Man) have ‘evolved’ from a long strand of primates. Christianity states that Man was created in Gods own image to rule over the earth.
Now i’m not big on evolution or Christianity for that matter, but there is no ‘harmonizing" in that, unless you believe God was a Primate that liked swinging from trees and enjoyed the occasional banana. Nice try XXXX. Also, "Agree" only has one "g" in it.
Have a pleasant day!
It is ironic that the survival of Christianity is due largely to its ability to "evolve" its story in the face of incompatible scientific fact.
Which it must be able to do if it’s message is "time-less", as it claims.