That actually supports my point.
We need to get back to the natural and discard these faux ideas.
Flat out- Things would be better that way.
Evolution vs. Creationism
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
We need to get back to the natural and discard these faux ideas.
Flat out- Things would be better that way.
I agree - but then we'd be back to having self-control and lacking systems enforcing other-control. I don't see that switch happening anytime soon, as good as it would be.
hwell:
From the way I see things, it will all be set back by either ourselves or something external.I agree - but then we'd be back to having self-control and lacking systems enforcing other-control. I don't see that switch happening anytime soon, as good as it would be.
*Nod* I can see that as a personal belief - I think it makes sense from your point of view as well. Me, I tilt that just a little bit. In my belief, I think we did have perfection, once, but mankind wasn't ready for it. So why didn't God create us perfect so we could enjoy paradise? Well...my answer would be this: I can't know perfection unless I have something imperfect to compare it to. And if I'm not ready to enjoy it, why have it?
In my opinion, I don't think God needs us. If you're omnipotent, perfect, and fulfilled in yourself you don't need anything else. So maybe the question becomes why create anything at all? Why create creatures with rational thought with the ability to reject you and reject each other? Why set yourself up for that heartbreak?
That, to me, is the real question.
But humans are attracted and drawn to the mysteries of the universe and they're drawn to understanding what created what - and why. And how.
Logically, Duty, you're right: It's difficult - perhaps impossible - to measure concepts beyond the five senses. But there are too many things that can't be quantifiable, can't be measured with human insight - there are things we can't understand right away because we just don't have all the knowledge yet. I'm not saying we won't have it, but...yeah. Sometimes bad things happen and we don't know why. Sometimes supposed holy men do really horrible, rotten things in the name of their gods. Sometimes followers of holy doctrines say and do horrible, rotten things. There just aren't good enough answers for those things.
But now I'm rambling - I'm being extremely INFJ and it's probably starting to irritate you.
See, the perspective that God is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and created the universe has the property of logically inconsistent. The few of you that keep insisting that it's still a "valid" belief I'm not disputing. Validity is only matched against our values. In my case, I value logical consistency very highly, and so the belief has little validity for me. However, I can understand where those of you who have grown up with this belief, or otherwise value something about this belief can put logical consistency aside and still claim the belief as your own.
God, being all-powerful, could have given humans free will and yet still had us be completely fulfilled, devoid of suffering. For example, he did not have to make it so we are so strongly inclined to view pain as a negative thing. He could have made it so pain is joyous in it's own way. He didn't have to create diseases (seriously, why would God create disease? it has nothing to do with free will...it's just pure suffering), and the like. The belief is just logically inconsistent.
That's ok though, I've had a huge paradigm shift recently. Perspectives are shaped by values. I value logic higher then most INFJs probably do. I think it's an incredible tool. Because I value logic, a belief I find to be logically inconsistent I generally find to be invalid. Well, honestly, my paradigm shift has me seeing it different. I don't see it as invalid, and I can see the uses this belief may have. I have the ultimate, and honestly wonderous power to adopt any perspective I wish to adopt, at any time. I can shape my reality to best accomodate the situation, it's empowering for sure.
So, I can only say that I think this perspective is logically inconsistent. It's just a property of the perspective, like volume is a property of a cup.
If, in the beginning - if there was a beginning, but for argument's sake, let's assume there was - God (...and I use the word God in the broadest sense possible) would be all there was/is. God would be infinite and alone, because God was/is all there was/is. There would be none other than God and there would be no other-where but God because God was the 'where' as well.
If there was a 'where' which was not God, then that would imply that God was not infinite or all that was/is, for then there would be 'place', even if that 'place' was/is infinite, and would imply that 'place' would have to exist before God. This would in turn present the question: who/what created 'place'?
God would know that God was all there was/is because there would be no 'other'. God would know God was infinite because God would have discovered no boundaries. Without boundaries, there is no 'other'.
If God created everything, then that 'creation' would have to be of God, in other words, consist of God because God is all there was/is, so there would be no 'other' to create from or create with. If God could create 'other than God', this would diminish God and negate the infinity of God. For God to negate the infinity of God would alter God to not-God - an impossiblity.
Therefore, God is not transcendant of the creations of God, the creations of God are God, ergo, the realization of God is the realization of infinity and oneness - being one with none other than one.
As well, for a creation to worship or pray to God would be a creation worshiping or praying to the creation itself, for the creation is not separate from God.
...just munchies for thought.
If there was a 'where' which was not God, then that would imply that God was not infinite or all that was/is, for then there would be 'place', even if that 'place' was/is infinite, and would imply that 'place' would have to exist before God. This would in turn present the question: who/what created 'place'?
God would know that God was all there was/is because there would be no 'other'. God would know God was infinite because God would have discovered no boundaries. Without boundaries, there is no 'other'.
If God created everything, then that 'creation' would have to be of God, in other words, consist of God because God is all there was/is, so there would be no 'other' to create from or create with. If God could create 'other than God', this would diminish God and negate the infinity of God. For God to negate the infinity of God would alter God to not-God - an impossiblity.
Therefore, God is not transcendant of the creations of God, the creations of God are God, ergo, the realization of God is the realization of infinity and oneness - being one with none other than one.
As well, for a creation to worship or pray to God would be a creation worshiping or praying to the creation itself, for the creation is not separate from God.
...just munchies for thought.
This isn't about your own validity or logic. It's about where shit ends up.
No, God didn't absolutely have to create disease. Thing is, what the hell would we have learned from?
My theory is that Original Sin is simply curiosity without understanding.
It isn't so much of a "Fuck you" as it is a "Well, you guys have to learn..."
Unneeded pain and suffering can be strengthening, more than anything else.
Personally, I hold my ground that God is nature.
Tell me, in what way does God not work in the way that you live your everyday life? Tell me, what complete love might seem incompatible with your perception of existence?
Omnipotence, omniscience and the ability to create the Universe would not be logically inconsistent as a conceptual basis for a being which transcends a phenomenological reality of human consciousness, though benevolence would, as this implies a duality of benevolence/malevolence. This duality would have to be included within the framework of omnipotence and therefore not be considered a duality.
I value logical consistency as well, so my approach to the question of the validity of a belief in God is determined by viewing the existence of God, or any supranatural being or absolute, as a probability. If one views God (in the Abrahamic/Judaic/Christian/Islamic/Bah'ai conceptual framework) as a probability, then validity is not founded on an either/or basis of existence/non-existence which cannot be proven or disproven.
What develops is a validity in accordance with individual values.
One individual may value Logic as the foundation for their perception of existence and another may value Faith as their foundation. To a certain extent, both individuals can reason why their foundation is valid, for reasoning is both a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action and the premise for an argument.
The premise for the argument concerning God by one who values Logic is that God cannot exist. The premise for the argument concerning God by one who values Faith is that God can exist. Neither is provable.
But if the argument is founded on a premise of the probability of the existence of God, then the questions concerning attributes and qualities can be fruitful.
The logical consistency remains for an individual whose foundation is Faith, for logic is only concerned with the principles governing correct or reliable inference. From the foundation of Faith that the probability of the existence of God is high, the inferences follow a consistent line of argument.
From the Abrahamic/.../Bah'ai perspective, the 'negatives' such as suffering and diseases were not of God's creation, they occured as a result of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were the degradation of the perfect attributes of the Garden, and therefore God's commandment to not eat from the Tree, which is why Adam and Eve were 'driven out'. In the Garden of Eden, God had created an 'innocence' which was free from pain, suffering and death. Adam and Eve now embodied those elements and could no longer be a part of this perfection.
Two concepts come to mind here.
One, by the inclusion of the two trees, one of Life and the other of Knowledge, God had created the implication of choice and therefore, free will. A duality was constructed which divided Knowledge from Life. If one desired eternal Life, Knowledge must be shunned. If one desired Knowledge, then one would surely die.
Two, the fact that Eve could have been convinced by the serpent to eat from the Tree proves that she could chose and therefore had free will, which in turn implies that woman was the first to seek Knowledge.
I arrived at a similar conceptual basis. Instead of attempting to prove validity by speculative argument, I began to investigate where within these structures of faith was there logical consistency and valid reasoning stemming from the root of the conceptual structure. This allowed me to research without prejudice and acquire a more broad perspective.
I will agree that these are properties of the perspective, but not that the perspective is logically inconsistent.
A couple more things I'd like to add on. I still don't see belief in God as logically inconsistent. If you're considering the existence of God, you have to consider the ramifications. For example, if God exists (in the Judeo/Christian/Islam/etc framework) then there's an afterlife.
I don't mind putting up with a short-term inconvenience/difficulty/pain if it means a longer-term gain. Like working out, paying to go to school, etc. As Pscilocin pointed out, we learn from hardship and difficulty. We grow in suffering.
Not only that, but I believe God will right all wrongs. He'll set straight everything when the time is right. God won't do that until it's time to intervene everywhere in everything. But it will balance out.
I mentioned an afterlife. What if it's true that God exists? What if it's true that there's an afterlife. What if it's true that the human soul is immortal? Compared to that, this life is short-term. Temporary. Anything negative that happens in this life will be looked on as just a short-term difficulty or a short-term pleasure. Short-term pain doesn't negate God's benevolence at all.
I don't mind putting up with a short-term inconvenience/difficulty/pain if it means a longer-term gain. Like working out, paying to go to school, etc. As Pscilocin pointed out, we learn from hardship and difficulty. We grow in suffering.
Not only that, but I believe God will right all wrongs. He'll set straight everything when the time is right. God won't do that until it's time to intervene everywhere in everything. But it will balance out.
I mentioned an afterlife. What if it's true that God exists? What if it's true that there's an afterlife. What if it's true that the human soul is immortal? Compared to that, this life is short-term. Temporary. Anything negative that happens in this life will be looked on as just a short-term difficulty or a short-term pleasure. Short-term pain doesn't negate God's benevolence at all.
Got to agree with you. We're meant to learn from our mistakes, but don't see how in the great scheme of things how we are individually responsible for the rest of creation, like a domino effect we are all cause and effect of eachother. Imagine how you could have made one decision 2 years ago to not go to university or to have taken a different job and how that would have had a knock on effect to all the people you've been connected with. The world would be a very different place due to the decisions you made and those decisions made by others because of you. Multiply that by what? 6 BILLION?! We direct our future together.
Our true nature must be far beyond these boundaries. I feel like an ant in a colony waiting for a galactic boot to stir things up... bring it on!!
I was raised in an educational system that taught Creationism all the way through to my undergraduate college degree. I spent a few years in public school in junior high and that was my only introduction to evolution. The way a person believes Creationism is equally plausible to evolution is that they are inundated with the idea and not introduced to the science of evolution. Evolution is presented as strawman argument making it appear equivalent in its ability to produce fact. The moral implications of the two systems are presented as pure, hopeful, and compassionate in the Creationism model, and cruelty and destruction to the weak in the evolution model. This makes the fight in favor of Creationism to be an attempt to justify compassion based on that model.
Dismantling this in my mind was a painful process as a result, and I still have a shadow of despair about the role of cruelty in nature. I am also somewhat awed by my ability to believe something I was conditioned to believe all the way into adulthood that was not based on reason. I guess the bright side is that it makes me patient when encountering other people who have been conditioned in such ways. I also am cautious to be too certain of anything because I can observe how my mind failed me in the past.
Dismantling this in my mind was a painful process as a result, and I still have a shadow of despair about the role of cruelty in nature. I am also somewhat awed by my ability to believe something I was conditioned to believe all the way into adulthood that was not based on reason. I guess the bright side is that it makes me patient when encountering other people who have been conditioned in such ways. I also am cautious to be too certain of anything because I can observe how my mind failed me in the past.
I'm sorry to digress but I was thinking about a conversation I had with a friend some time back.
I don't understand why anyone would say extreme suffering, poverty, injustice, disease are part of God's masterplan. If going through all of these negative things warrant a better afterlife, it sort of makes heaven look like some personification of hope.
It's as if terminal cancer was a straight ticket to heaven and the good life.
I don't understand why anyone would say extreme suffering, poverty, injustice, disease are part of God's masterplan. If going through all of these negative things warrant a better afterlife, it sort of makes heaven look like some personification of hope.
It's as if terminal cancer was a straight ticket to heaven and the good life.
I firmly believe in God and am a Christian, but I've never felt that Creationism and Evolution are contradictions of each other. I can't see why people have to argue and fight over such a thing. I believe in both.
I worked as an assistant teacher at a private Christian middle/high school when I was pregnant with my son. The tunnel-vision they teach these children is outrageous. I actually had kids that were offended by text in the vocabulary books, because they would say things like wooly mammoths being around millions of years ago. Apparently these kids are taught an absolute beginning of time, based on the Bible. I dunno. The Bible I know doesn't give out dates. It's sad that children are conditioned to have closed minds. But, I also know it works the other way 'round. People should teach their children to be open-minded and accepting, while still holding onto their personal morals. Don't teach against religion and don't teach against science. Our minds and hearts can tolerate both.
I worked as an assistant teacher at a private Christian middle/high school when I was pregnant with my son. The tunnel-vision they teach these children is outrageous. I actually had kids that were offended by text in the vocabulary books, because they would say things like wooly mammoths being around millions of years ago. Apparently these kids are taught an absolute beginning of time, based on the Bible. I dunno. The Bible I know doesn't give out dates. It's sad that children are conditioned to have closed minds. But, I also know it works the other way 'round. People should teach their children to be open-minded and accepting, while still holding onto their personal morals. Don't teach against religion and don't teach against science. Our minds and hearts can tolerate both.
I don't see how evolution is in contradiction to creationism. Evolution has scientific proof and fossils; creationism has documents that speak of it, but does not have reproducible evidence.
I am not suggesting that creationism is worse than evolution, but I am saying that evolution has physical concrete proof in the form of fossils. I find it disappointing that others become so inflamed when their views are challenged (such as in the creationism and evolution debate).
To answer the op's question, I think people will put their beliefs into whatever they choose (whether it is objective, subjective, or other). I think a great disconnect is formed though when they begin to attack others' beliefs: how do you compare an objective and a subjective approach to why life exists?
I am not suggesting that creationism is worse than evolution, but I am saying that evolution has physical concrete proof in the form of fossils. I find it disappointing that others become so inflamed when their views are challenged (such as in the creationism and evolution debate).
To answer the op's question, I think people will put their beliefs into whatever they choose (whether it is objective, subjective, or other). I think a great disconnect is formed though when they begin to attack others' beliefs: how do you compare an objective and a subjective approach to why life exists?
This is such an awesome debate I could hug it - and I didn't even get to read it all, I had to skim or I would spend hours.
My (random) worry is that if we teach a bunch of dim kids about God, they will eventually grow to persecute those smart enough to understand evolution, call them heretics etc. (and hey, I'm not being too doubtful of the human mind, I've had a kid ask in my class why Bill Gates is rich if he's clearly not Fit; and most people seemed to agree it was a valid question)
Beyond that, I think God is a matter of semantics, which I'm not great at, so I leave it to others to argue about his official existence or non-existence.
My (random) worry is that if we teach a bunch of dim kids about God, they will eventually grow to persecute those smart enough to understand evolution, call them heretics etc. (and hey, I'm not being too doubtful of the human mind, I've had a kid ask in my class why Bill Gates is rich if he's clearly not Fit; and most people seemed to agree it was a valid question)
Beyond that, I think God is a matter of semantics, which I'm not great at, so I leave it to others to argue about his official existence or non-existence.
I don't know, it was even approved by Pope John Paul the 2nd. I think it's because some think that all of the bible is true, which I disagree. Maybe some parts aren't explained to this? Maybe this all happened in 7 days? But, it doesn't matter, because even though I do believe in God, I also believe in evolution.
I find it somewhat amusing: the thought that whatever way we see things may not have a bearing on reality whether we like it or not. That brings about another question: can we and/or do we create reality ourselves? We do create things and situations, however small they may seem to us. If I am really growing and learning/filling my mind with wisdom, does that have to be called evolving? Are not the words "creation and evolution" different from the words "creating and evolving"?
Made from the dust of the earth, the fascination is all in the breath of life to me. From the skies to the deepest seas, I remain fascinated with life in all its many forms. Who can argue its magnificence?
Made from the dust of the earth, the fascination is all in the breath of life to me. From the skies to the deepest seas, I remain fascinated with life in all its many forms. Who can argue its magnificence?