Evolution vs. Creationism

[Lurker]

Who would be so ignorant to say there is no God

It's not ignorance, belief in God/creation/evolution/etc is a personal choice everyone needs to make for themselves, what is arrogant is to say anyone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs is ignorant or wrong.

What you believe to be undeniable proof will be considered highly subjective or even flat out wrong by someone with an opposing view and vice versa. Calling others ignorant simply allows you to shut your mind to ideas that oppose your views. My suggestion is concentrate less on others beliefs and how ignorant you believe them to be and just be glad you have found what is a truth for you.

 

[G.Kai]

Whoa, that's some apocalyptic cracked out sermonizing there.

 

[Lurker]

Whoa, that's some apocalyptic cracked out sermonizing there.

Huh? Is that directed at me and if so does it serve any purpose but baiting?

 

[Shai Gar]

FREE FOR ALL RELIGIOUS FIGHT! Everyone! Bring your own crusaders! Lizardmen! Forward March!

 

[Mannit]

In my opinion, people turn to religion to gain a sense of purpose. To know that there is something else to live for, or strive towards. The ultimate questions of who are we, where do we come from and where do we go can often be put to relative rest with religion. Whether you believe that's right or wrong.

Science is fine...but some people just need a little more.

Even as a Catholic I'm saying that there is no physical proof that God exists.

That's why it's called a faith.

I don't think it should be too much of an issue. Each to their own I say.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I believe that before anyone can begin to have faith in a God, they need to first experience a moment of their own, true spirituality. There's an euphoric feeling, yet it's incredibly calm, as if you're chest is about to burst with joy. But you can still see everything clearly and objectively; things take on a new prospective, and the world seems to just pass you by, unimportantly.
That's when you begin to believe there is at least something.

Everyone gets there differently though; that's the catch. I get that feeling by a solitary, relaxed connection with nature. My sister gets it through singing in church; in fact, I think more people tend to reach that stage through church and religious based activities. It's not so much that the church is extremely important when it comes to many religions; its that, through the church and with a combined effort to find your spirituality, many people find it easier to concentrate on reaching that point.

One could say it could just be a natural high, and who knows? Maybe it is. But until they experience it, they shouldn't judge. Religion is more than just a brain-washing slew of teachings about some entity that no one can really explain or prove; it's a real feeling and a true connection, if not to God then at least to oneself, and it's a shame that people feel as if they cannot respect that.
True, some people give it a bad name, and some people are actually in it to brainwash or because they're brain-washed. But the true base of it is something more than that.


Besides, let's be serious here; if there actually is an all-powerful, all-knowing God, then would it be so easy just to prove it? What, does someone expect Him to stick His head out from the heavens and be like, "Hay thar!"?
That'd be like trying to prove there is a king by waltzing up to his castle and asking to see him. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Dice]

Albert Einstein

I am tolerant of all beliefs and just like you I can respectfully disagree.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein

Are you smarter than him?
And why don't you try that technique and make you own assumption afterwords. scared ?

My faith comes from my experiences,stabbed and lived, wrongfully imprisoned and freed. And seeing others die all around me, but I lived. Why, others say I am just a bad ass, but I would never put my self up so high. That is what I mean. Putting all in an explainable category. Man cannot explain everything,only tell himself a lie to sooth his puny mind.

But until you go through a true battle in life which puts everything you think and know in the garbage I can't expect you to understand.
But when your down and all your so called friends have left you or the doctors tell you there is no hope.
Yea then you'll prey.
:mno:

 

[Satya]

Most common arguments against God...

Argument from precedent: If there is a God then why have all empirical methods consistently discovered only natural things and causes, even underlying many things once thought to be supernatural? Meanwhile, no other methods have produced any consistent conclusions about the substance or causes of anything, much less anything supernatural.

Argument from absence: If there is a God then why is he so silent and inert that his presence and effects are almost never observed, despite vast and extensive searching?

Occam's razor: In the absence of any reasonable argument to believe anything supernatural exists or explains anything, and in the presence of some reasonable arguments to believe the natural world exists and explains everything, science should be accepted until disproven.

Moral truth: the evidence suggest that we derive moral propositions from actual facts about human needs and desires and the social and physical environment we inhabit, not from a supernatural source.

Most common arguments for God...

Argument from despair: If there is not God then their is no meaning to life, there is no safer bet for eternal salvation, there is no free will, no hope, no knowledge, or moral responsibility. (appeal to consequences)

Argument from religious experience: Many people claim to have seen, felt, or talked to God or any number of other spirits, and claim these religious experiences refute the idea there is no God.

Argument from miracles: Miracles are proof of God's existence. Alleged cases of supernatural healing or aid and fulfilled prophesies demonstrate the proof of God's existence.

Argument from the necessity of God: It is impossible for the universe to exist unless it is caused or cohabited by a supernatural entity.

Argument to cosmological design: The fundamental constants of physics and laws of nature appear so finely-tuned to permit life that only a supernatural engineer can explain it.

Argument from improbability of life: the origin of life was too improbable to have occurred without supernatural intervention and therefore science fails to explain the appearance of life.

Argument to biological design: Certain structures in evolved organisms are too complex to have evolved by natural selection and can only be explained as the result of intelligent design. This argument suggests that certain biological instances (the favorite example being the eye) could not have occurred gradually, but must have come to be instantaneously.

Argument from reason: certain features of human reason cannot be explained by science. Science cannot explain intentionality, mental causation, or the existence of logical laws or abstract objects.

Argument from incoherence: Because science assumes that everything is physical, using physical data in support of it would constitute circular reasoning. It cannot prove or disprove the nonphysical.

Moral argument: Without God, there would be no morality and no moral truth.


There is valid reasoning on both sides of the fence when it comes to evolution vs. creationism. However, creationism should never be taught in a scientific class since it has nothing to do with empirical evidence and is based primarily on subjective experiences.

 

[TheLastMohican]

How did a science vs. pseudoscience discussion turn into a general mish-mash of arguments for or against God and faith?

:focus:

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Well, if you think about it, the topic "creationism vs. evolution" was just asking for that sort of debate

Although, as a few more counterarguments, I can't see why science couldn't be tied in with religion. I mean, just because we can see all the pieces and predict outcomes does not mean there's no God; it just means we can see all the pieces and predict outcomes :mD: Who said that God couldn't create atoms or physical laws?

I also agree with Satya that creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's not science; it's a religious aspect. I think they should have religion as a elective in schools though; not just Christianity, but all religions. I can see why people wouldn't want their kids learning it, but if it's an elective, then what do they have to complain about? They don't have to learn it.
But then you still get the added benefits of teaching kids to try to understand another's point of view, even if you don't believe them yourself. It would be a chance to overcome ignorance, at least a little.

 

[Quinlan]

Although, as a few more counterarguments, I can't see why science couldn't be tied in with religion. I mean, just because we can see all the pieces and predict outcomes does not mean there's no God; it just means we can see all the pieces and predict outcomes :mD: Who said that God couldn't create atoms or physical laws?

The problem is replace "god" with "leprechauns" or "fairies" and the statement is just as relevant to real life. In fact replace any reference to god you can find with "invisible flying pink spaghetti teapot monster unicorn" and the statement will have equal relevance.

Basing anything in the real world on "invisible flying pink spaghetti teapot monster unicorn" or leprechauns or fairies just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Satya]

Although, as a few more counterarguments, I can't see why science couldn't be tied in with religion. I mean, just because we can see all the pieces and predict outcomes does not mean there's no God; it just means we can see all the pieces and predict outcomes :mD: Who said that God couldn't create atoms or physical laws?

Religions assume God is supernatural, whereas science argues that all things that exist are natural. If you try to combine the two and assume that God is natural, then that almost invariably leads to pantheism as a result of a culmination of the core philosophies.

Teleology: the philosophy that believes that everything follows a design, everything in that design has a purpose, all purposes serve a higher, final purpose, and thus all ratoinal beings must exist to achieve the perfection of their own nature in order to serve the highest purpose or good. (The underlying philosophy behind most theologies)

Metaphysical Naturalism: the philosophy that believes that nature is all there is, that there is no supernatural design or final purpose, and all things can be understood by the natural phenomena that cause them. (The underlying philosophy behind science)

"God is all there is, has ever been or ever will be." -the Omnipresent belief of God as presented by the Roman Catholic Church (the teleological conclusion)

"The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been or ever will be." - the Concise definition of the Universe as presented by Carl Sagan (the metaphysical naturalistic conclusion)

Conclusion: Since God is defined as omnipresent, meaning he is everything and everywhere through all time, and the concise definition of the cosmos is that it is everything and everywhere through all time, it is not improbable that the two are one in the same. (Call this the "If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, then it is a duck" assumption) In other words, it is probable that God is natural and exists as the cosmos.

From this assumption, the two schools of thought could be combined into the idea of a natural design, which has formed from natural laws established long ago, but not altered since the dawn of time.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Well, if you think about it, the topic "creationism vs. evolution" was just asking for that sort of debate

It usually heads this way, true. Carry on. If this starts getting specific in some aspect of theology or philosophy, I'll just split it.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

The problem is replace "god" with "leprechauns" or "fairies" and the statement is just as relevant to real life. In fact replace any reference to god you can find with "invisible flying pink spaghetti teapot monster unicorn" and the statement will have equal relevance.

Basing anything in the real world on "invisible flying pink spaghetti teapot monster unicorn" or leprechauns or fairies just doesn't make any sense.

People's God could be different things. I mean, let's define our limitations as people: who has seen God? Who could actually know what God is? And I'm not talking from a strictly Christian sense; God could also mean spiritual beings in the context of some other religions. But, if there were some sort of omnipotent, all-powerful being, then we can conclude that we really don't know what it is. In fact, the nature of God compared to the nature of people makes it impossible for us to really understand what He is.

In other words: I've never seen God, so I can't prove that he's not an "invisible flying pink spaghetti teapot monster unicorn." So where's the problem in that? I mean, if it just so happened that that's what God was, would that really be a problem?

Religions assume God is supernatural, whereas science argues that all things that exist are natural. If you try to combine the two and assume that God is natural, then that almost invariably leads to pantheism as a result of a culmination of the core philosophies.

Teleology: the philosophy that believes that everything follows a design, everything in that design has a purpose, all purposes serve a higher, final purpose, and thus all ratoinal beings must exist to achieve the perfection of their own nature in order to serve the highest purpose or good. (The underlying philosophy behind most theologies)

Well, doesn't everything follow a design? I mean, there are distinct laws in nature: according to science, all things can be broken down into atoms, most if not all things follow certain laws of physics, and chemicals react certain ways to certain things because of the minute reactions between molecules. Isn't that a design?
According to many religions, God(s) created the world; no one said he couldn't create a system in it. No one said he couldn't "build" it from something deeper than what we can see.
Now, the part about rational beings achieving a their higher purpose is a bit more complicated because it can vary quite a bit according to religion. But, for the most part, there is often an outline in religion as to "why." That is purely religious, and could not be explained in the context of science vs. religion very well without some serious consideration.

Conclusion: Since God is defined as omnipresent, meaning he is everything and everywhere through all time, and the concise definition of the cosmos is that it is everything and everywhere through all time, it is not improbable that the two are one in the same. (Call this the "If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, then it is a duck" assumption) In other words, it is probable that God is natural and exists as the cosmos.

From this assumption, the two schools of thought could be combined into the idea of a natural design, which has formed from natural laws established long ago, but not altered since the dawn of time.

So....are you agreeing with me...? :B

 

[Quinlan]

People's God could be different things. I mean, let's define our limitations as people: who has seen God? Who could actually know what God is? And I'm not talking from a strictly Christian sense; God could also mean spiritual beings in the context of some other religions. But, if there were some sort of omnipotent, all-powerful being, then we can conclude that we really don't know what it is. In fact, the nature of God compared to the nature of people makes it impossible for us to really understand what He is.

In other words: I've never seen God, so I can't prove that he's not an "invisible flying pink spaghetti teapot monster unicorn." So where's the problem in that? I mean, if it just so happened that that's what God was, would that really be a problem?

The problem occurs when people start imposing their beliefs and morals that they have received from god/fairies/leprechauns/the voices in their head, on other people. All I'm saying is people shouldn't try and change the natural world in the name of things that have no natural basis. If I started promoting the belief in leprechauns and preaching that the leprechauns say that all woman are evil and we should persecute women for this, insisting on donations from poor people for this cause and flying planes into buildings because the leprechauns told me there would be a pot of gold in it for me, would that be acceptable? Afterall I'm just showing "faith" and being a good follower.

 

[Quinlan]

As an aside, I believe leprechauns and fairies to be more plausible than god because they are far simplier beings and do not require an explanation of what they have created.

 

[G.Kai]

Huh? Is that directed at me and if so does it serve any purpose but baiting?

Lurker - it was aimed at Dice. I didn't hit Submit fast enough. Sorry for the mispost.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

The problem occurs when people start imposing their beliefs and morals that they have received from god/fairies/leprechauns/the voices in their head, on other people. All I'm saying is people shouldn't try and change the natural world in the name of things that have no natural basis. If I started promoting the belief in leprechauns and preaching that the leprechauns say that all woman are evil and we should persecute women for this, insisting on donations from poor people for this cause and flying planes into buildings because the leprechauns told me there would be a pot of gold in it for me, would that be acceptable? Afterall I'm just showing "faith" and being a good follower.

What is acceptable is mostly a prospective of society, but that's a different argument in itself.
In the context for the argument, about whether or not a God or other higher, spiritual being may exist, the way you choose or are taught to worship is currently irrelevant. Religious practices and converting others would be a different matter.
You don't have to be of or practice any denomination of any religion to believe there may be at least a possibility that a higher power exists.

And you're right; people shouldn't push their views on anyone else. A lot of problems with religion is that people tend to try to force others to take on their views, yet at the same time will not listen to the customs or views of any other religion. That's why I would promote an elective class to study the different types of religion and their beliefs; it might help lessen the ignorance of other religions and help people become more tolerant.

 

[Satya]

Well, doesn't everything follow a design?

It depends on the paradigm you accept. Assuming there is a design means assuming there is a designer. Design, by definition, means there is plan or purpose. If you have a telelogical paradigm, then you are likely to believe there is a supernatural designer. If you have a metaphysical naturalistic paradigm, then you believe human beings observe the natural forces of the universe and ascribe meaning to them and therefore there is no underlying design, but simply a human interpretation of the natural forces around them.

I mean, there are distinct laws in nature: according to science, all things can be broken down into atoms, most if not all things follow certain laws of physics, and chemicals react certain ways to certain things because of the minute reactions between molecules. Isn't that a design?

Who named the atoms? Natural laws, in and of themselves, do not provide proof of the existence of a supernatural God. They are a description of natural phenomena. But as you can see above, in one of my earlier posts, it is a common argument that natural laws are proof of God. You clearly accept the cosmological design paradigm. You believe that the fundamental constants of physics and laws of nature appear so finely-tuned to permit life that only a supernatural engineer can explain it. However, that argument comes down to a value judgment since you are arguing about how things "appear" to be. It is equally conceivable that physics and laws of nature are born from completely explainable natural phenomena, rather than a supernatural source.

So....are you agreeing with me...? :B

I'm merely providing you with the three most commonly held perspectives that are currently available to us. There is teleology, metaphysical naturalism, and cosmology. Its entirely up to your subjective belief system as to whether you accept there is a supernatural designer, only the cosmos, or a designer that is the cosmos.

 

[Freedom]

Even as a Catholic I'm saying that there is no physical proof that God exists.

That's why it's called a faith.

I don't think it should be too much of an issue. Each to their own I say.

I totally agree with you!