Page 1 of 25 1234567811 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 314
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,936
    Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

    How does this concept conflict with what is written?
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    440
    Originally posted by scrogdog
    Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

    How does this concept conflict with what is written?
    It is more like man created God in his image.
    Religion is nothing more than wishful thinking.
    Prayers are wishes. Humans are by-in-large
    a selfish, cruel, self-centered lot. Even
    Hitler thought he was kind, self-sacrificing
    and altruistic. Humans have infinite capacity
    to delude themselves. Every person claims to
    be kind and good-natured, even the most ruthless
    like Al Capone.

    A highly-educated, intelligent dissident in China
    was locked in a coffin-sized cell for twenty
    years. He emerged unable to communicate or
    care for himself in the most basic way. His
    mind was rent asunder. There is nothing left
    of the person that was originally incarcerated.
    All that is left is a shell. His soul was
    slowly destroyed as he slowly went mad. If
    anyone can imagine the torture this man
    went through, that person can know there is
    no loving, compassionate, merciful, understanding
    all-powerful being that would allow such a thing
    to take place. I don't think most humans can
    imagine what it is like to experience mind-wrenching
    torment. You just have to multiply your worst
    pain and fear a trillion, trillion times.

    Some people don't believe in objective morality.
    They think if there was no God it would be okay
    to torture babies. They think God is not bound
    by any moral rules. Whatever God does is right.
    They believe ultimate might and power make right.

    If there a super powerful, all knowing creator
    that made the universe, He certainly is one
    sick puppy devoid of morality, and the world's
    biggest hypocrite to boot.

    There is nothing that exists in the universe
    that doesn't have a perfectly good natural
    explanation. There is nothing in the universe
    that is reconcilable with a kind, loving,
    compassionate creator.

    Everything that happens in the universe has a
    natural cause. First, man didn't understand
    the univerese and attributed all the workings
    of the universe to God. Now that man understands
    98% of the universe, God is relegated to
    explaining the other 2%. The more man
    learns about the universe, the smaller God's
    role becomes.

    If someone asks me what happened before the
    big bang, I can tell them. But they won't
    understand unless they first study topology.
    Laymen are quick to dispute the theory of
    relativity without understanding it, and
    without understanding why it was accepted
    in the first place.

    Cheers,
    michael

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,981
    Originally posted by scrogdog
    Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

    How does this concept conflict with what is written?
    Without an extreme fundamentalist viewpoint that requires adding information that is not there, Genesis does not conflict with science or evolution.

    Genesis is a very basic "this is what happened" that was geared toward a time period practically void of scientific knowledge. Genesis does not try to detail how things occured or even truly pin down time spans for the occurences. It was very common for persons of Biblical times to use "time span" terminology that had very little corralation with real time. Some Asian cultures are still this way. If you ask when your laundry will be ready in some areas of China and are told "tomorrow", don't be surprised if your laundry is not ready for a few days. "Tomorrow" in some cultures simply refers to "sometime in the near future".
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  4. #4
    The validity of ANY belief must be determined on the basis of the foundation upon which it rests.
    My belief is based upon religious theology handed down through the centuries.
    As I see it, the atheist’s arguments against God will appear equally baseless, absurd, and flawed in that they are based upon the assumptive premise that the universe is, and therefore it has always been.
    The Big Bang theory? That assertion stems from a belief system equally as unverifiable as the theologian's insistence on Creation which caused the effect of the universe.
    Therefore, the atheist is blind to his own prejudice in this matter.

    Consciousness is the means by which we become aware of our own existence, and subsequently, all things external to ourselves.
    We absorb evidence through practical experience through the workings of our consciousness. That gives validity to such demonstrable facts as our own existence.
    “I breathe, therefore I am”. If we accept the testimony of our consciousness with regard to our own presence in this world, then why should we doubt the testimony of our consciousness when it witnesses causation for all things? If the evidence that intelligence must be a prerequisite for the elaborate interrelations of all things is clear, why accept the one as reality, while rejecting the other as a figment of one’s imagination since both stem from the same revelation of consciousness?
    It’s just like a conservative trying to argue a point with a liberal - it just doesn’t get past the filter of irrationality and reproach of mind which impairs the liberal’s judgments.

    You just can’t seem to get past the hurdle of thinking that because God has knowledge of all things, that he must direct all things according to that knowledge, if he is at all all-powerful and able to do the same. Omniscience does not necessitate predetermination to make possible what one knows will happen.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,936
    Though I am not a believer, I do not consider my self "anti-god". It is more like I am "pro-science".

    I am actually trying to gain a better understanding of the mindset that can see fit to ignore the science that makes them uncomfortable and yet bask in the many benefits that science brings to your life every day. That science is ok, but other science is not?

    There is bad science out there, no question. That does not mean that we should retreat from science and point to it as a bad thing. Quite the contrary, only a solid science education can help one to figure out who the charlatans are. But you must have a knowledge of how proper science works to make that determination. This is why I rail so hard against Intelligent Design being taught in science class. It is not that I care whether or not you personally consider ID as science, it is that I DO care that today’s kids know what science is and how it works. ID may be fine philosophy, but it is not science.

    So, I am trying to figure out why it is so damn important that Genesis be interpreted literally. As you may guess, I argue evolution in other forums as well. I said on another forum that it was difficult to understand why creationists went after evolution so hard when almost ALL science points to an old Earth in one way or another… evolution is not special in that regard. So I said something like “you do not need evolution to show an old Earth”.

    To that, a Christian poster replied “you also do not need a young Earth to be a good Christian. I have studied the bible and its history extensively, and I am convinced that being a Christian has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth was created 5000 years ago. In fact, the whole argument is quite irrelevant to understanding what being a good Christian is all about. So… yes. I accept both Genesis and evolution and do not consider either to be in conflict with the other.”

    He sounds a lot like Robo.

    Also, in past history, the Roman Catholic Church had to alter its position to align itself with known science. Yet, this did not cause the collapse of the church or Christianity. It did not turn believers in to unbelievers.

    I fail to see how accepting evolution challenges your beliefs. This is what I am trying to understand by creating this topic.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    where you at?
    Posts
    3,359
    "My belief is based upon religious theology handed down through the centuries."


    ...plitical propaganda dressed-up like religion.
    that's nice, that's very nice.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Originally posted by chillbilly
    As I see it, the atheist’s arguments against God will appear equally baseless, absurd, and flawed in that they are based upon the assumptive premise that the universe is, and therefore it has always been.
    I can't speak for all Atheists but the basis of my Atheism is simply that there is no compelling evidence for your god or any other god.


    The Big Bang theory? That assertion stems from a belief system equally as unverifiable as the theologian's insistence on Creation which caused the effect of the universe.
    The Big Bang theory stems from scientific evidence and is anything but a belief system.

    Therefore, the atheist is blind to his own prejudice in this matter.
    I think not. As opposed to a belief system, we follow the evidence. Show me a theory that better explains the observed evidence and I will drop the Big Bang like a rock. This is the difference between a belief system and the scientific method. You hold your beliefs to be unassailable and immune to contradictory evidence. Scientific theories are susceptible to new or contradictory evidence which could either modify or even invalidate them.







    If we accept the testimony of our consciousness with regard to our own presence in this world, then why should we doubt the testimony of our consciousness when it witnesses causation for all things?
    Because that perception of causation may be based on emotion and desire rather than reality or credible evidence

    If the evidence that intelligence must be a prerequisite for the elaborate interrelations of all things is clear
    It is not clear.


    why accept the one as reality, while rejecting the other as a figment of one’s imagination since both stem from the same revelation of consciousness?
    Because one is evidenced and the other is wishful thinking.


    It’s just like a conservative trying to argue a point with a liberal - it just doesn’t get past the filter of irrationality and reproach of mind which impairs the liberal’s judgments.
    This from someone who promotes ghosts and goblins.




    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  8. #8
    Again, scientific methods are fallible and speculative.
    The scientific methodology you endorse is the basis of your beliefs in Big Bang, is it not?
    In my view that would suggest that it is your BELIEF, but there is not scientific evidence that proves Big Bang is correct. If there is, please by all means, do show it.


    Causation based on one's conscious processing of information taken from a time in which there are no credible witnesses or methods, is nothing more than speculation and cannot be proven or disproven. That alone makes proving Big Bang, God or any other entity or chain of events from an era unknown, entirely impossible to prove.

    Science is a good thing as long as it's merit is not overexaggerated.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,936
    Well, science isn't about proving things, it is about explaining things.

    Scientific theory should never be considered a fact. It should be considered our best explanation.

    But this goes back to the seperation of fact and theory. Think of it this way... does the theory of gravitation attempt to prove to you that gravity exists? Do any of the widely varied theories regarding global warming attempt to show that global warming exists? No, the theory of gravitation attempts to explain the hows and whys of gravity. The theories of global warming attempt to explain the mechanisms and workings of global warming. And finally, the theory of evolution attempts to explain how evolution works.

    Now... let's say that you disbelieved in gravity. Just for the sake of argument. To the rest of us, it would look rather silly to see you poke holes in the Theory of Gravitation in an attempt to show that gravity doesn't exist in the first place! For one thing, the theory is not try to demonstrate that gravity exists, it is trying to explain to you how it works. If the theory is wrong, does that mean that gravity does not exist? Of course not.

    It is no different with evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, which is defined by noted Evolutionary theorist Steve Gould as something that has been ""confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

    Let me try to put this another way. Let's say that Darwin was found to be comepletely wrong. To most people like you, that would seem to be a death knell for evolution. But it isn't. Man descended from ape-like creatures whether we did so by Darwin's proposed theory or some other yet to be discovered.

    The point? Poking holes in a theory that explains how something works does not make that something go away. Evolution is a fact. The confusion on your end, I believe, is a failure to understand the difference between fact and theory. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts remain while theories are modified.

    So, I think you are going off in the wrong direction here. Yes, science is speculative when formulating theories, but not when it is observing facts.

    [Edited by scrogdog on 04-21-2006 at 04:55 PM]
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    The Bible is very consistant in how it is written. I bring this up because Genesis says creation was completed, step by step, in 6 days. In every instance where the word "yom" (Hebrew for day) is modified by a number in any form (one, two, first, second, etc.), it is speaking of a 24 hour period. When it is modified by something other than a number ("in my day"; "in the last days"; "in the days of Noah", etc.) they are indefinite periods of time. That should answer your OP.

    Okay. Go ahead. I'm expecting all kinds'a guff. Dish it out. I can take it. My reward awaits and builds.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,936
    Boot, you're the man I really want to talk to. My original question is still valid; still trying to understand the mindset.

    Shouldn't your faith be unshakable? Let's suppose that tomorrow, science demonstrates the reality of evolution in such a grand way that even beleivers could no longer deny the facts.

    Truthfully... I do not beleive that event would herald the end of Christianity. Do you? What would happen to your faith in such an event?
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  12. #12
    Theories explain possibilities.
    Scientific principles explain physical truths using irrefutable proof.
    What scientific laws reveal Big Bang as irrefutable evidence of how the universe came into being?

    On a side note, I don't believe anyone visits these threads to prove anything so that others may "drop their beliefs like a rock". You may hold steadfast to your beliefs in theory for as long as you wish. Who cares?
    Just remember, your theories are just that. Theories.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    Originally posted by chillbilly
    [B]Again, scientific methods are fallible and speculative.
    No a scientific theory is a conclusion based on a set of observed facts. Yes error is possible. But the scientific system has a self correcting mechanism. Peer review. Peer review involves being skeptical and asking probing questions. This is exactly the opposite of religion.

    Science is questions that may not have an answer. Religion is answers that may not be questioned.




Page 1 of 25 1234567811 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event