Alex
Do you believe there were fish and that eventually became "dogs" who eventually became fish that were mammals?
Why would I?
Seems reasonable to me without a betteralternative.
Why does it seem reasonable to you?
That is my underlying question, in support of the title of the thread?
I expect you are correct as one may have to live a million years or more to do so...
So you accept it cannot be observed?
I know what you are driving at but you must admit they are so close is there a need for a distinction. A religion is made up of theists after all.
Not necessarily.
A religion is a social construct.
The authority of most religions, are its leaders.
People who attend Joel Osteens church for example, do so because they have a connection with Joel. IOW he is the reason they attend, and donate. A theist does not follow a leader, if that leader deviates from the teachings of God. Because a theist believes in God.
Theism actually means what it says, as does atheism. A lot of theists are recognising that religions are deteriorating, which is why religion is on the decline. The new genre is “Spiritual”.
True...although a science approach limits belief to testable matters...even my wild assertion re an eternal universe is based on what our best cosmology tells us...
Hmm!
I beg to differ on that one, at the moment.
I doubt an eternal universe, in the sense you are talking is logically sound.
The Big Crunch aspect of eternality of the universe, is more logical imo.
Sure given you give me little to go on I turn to supposition...which supports my expressed views on the dangers of supposition....
I’ve given you everything to go on.
But it’s like we’re speaking to different languages. You are expecting something, that is not applicable. You are asking for evidence of the origin of everything, including yourself, and the ability to make the question. You are acting as though the origin of everything is not the origin of everything.
God makes the claim, via scripture, that He is the origin of everything. So you either accept that claim, or not. If you don’t, then why ask for evidence. You must realise that everything is evidence according to the claim. But you reject and deny it.
However I made no mention of god but I spoke of a creator and there being no evidence of that one way or the other....you can look at the universe and claim a creator or not but to say look the universe exists so it must have been created is not evidence. An honest answer for each of us would be that we really don't know.
Fine.
But it logically follows that a creation has a creator. Using the old Mount Rushmore analogy, that we instinctively know, regardless of education, that it was formed by an intelligent agent.
In the same instinctive way we can understand that this universe was created by an intelligent agency. Of course you have the right to reject or deny that idea, but it is still instinctively known.
These metaphors Jan are not useful.
On the contrary.
It shows where you are at.
Remember you are the one “lacking”, or “without belief”.
The metaphor brought that home by being without sight.
But really I guess I could employ such a metaphor to describe you...
You would be implying that I am without science., which would not be true.
Is it something theists must do.?..
Tell it the way it is please...I am not a child who can not understand a new concept..or an old one.
My apologies if it came across like that.
I will try and refrain from using metaphors in future.
It’s just that they cover so much ground.
Not really, started with Sun worship and that evolved to human god worship based on astrology with the Romans promoting one cult that was spread through out it's empire.
You don’t know that, and ancient history doesn’t attest to that. So why keep repeating it.
I agree but I am at a lost as to how you can proceed to discuss where authority lays without first establishing that a god or gods exist.
That’s not how it works, Alex.
Let's try this..assume I accept God ..what evidence could you then offer?
Very poor question.
If you accept God, you are no longer an atheist.
God is the norm. You are without, or lacking belief in, God.
This idea of evidence for God, is an atheist endeavour, where theists enjoy the challenge of trying to answer their questions. It’s actually a good thing all round, on a certain level, because we are always talking about, therefore. remembering, God. It strengthens my belief in God.
.I find religion is critical for war. I mean it must be hard to kill another human unless you could convince yourself that there is a God and you are on his side.
You do realise that would an atheist pursuit, if you have to convince yourself God is on your side, therefore I am allowed to kill.
From a theist perspective, there are no sides.
If I do something for my own self-interest, that harms another being, even if I dress it up with “God is on my side”, I am liable for my actions, and will pay for it.
Are you implying that wars are due to religion?
And it helps folk who are afraid of dying, it saves folk learning cosmology and biology.
If it helps folks from fear of death, I see that as a positive thing.
But how does
save folk from learning science?
I find that confusing.
You seem to think biology, and cosmology, are modern pursuits. They’re not.
I think about things from both perspectives and the problem for creationism it seems to me is that it does not explain species appearing and disappearing...
What is the importance?
Further I find the notion that all species were created on day one..or whatever in "the start", impossible to imagine as we then need to have humans living at the same time as dinasaurs, for example, ...
In the day of the Lord. Firstly.
Secondly, that wasn’t the first time.
The earth was formless, and void. It was barren and chaotic. The Lord simply seeded the planet again. Giving instruction to humans, to go forth, multiply, and re-plenish the earth.
You are citing Christian belief.
If you go for a ten thousand year old Earth one could possibly make that work but it seems clear that dinasuars were around for approx one hundred and fifty millions of years and humans appeared only say within the last million years..and that period is really too generous.
I don’t subscribe to Young Earth Creationism.
You are seeing it from a darwinian perspective.
But as you have agreed, that cannot be observed, or tested.
Apparently they’re finding soft tissue belonging to dinosaurs. There should be non, if dinosaurs died out 65+ million years ago,
No doubt Darwinists have their explanations ready at hand. But they would. They have to protect their belief.
Do you like Ken Hams approach for example?
I don’t know.
I haven’t listened to him.
I would be interested to hear your opinion as to how the various species appeared ..all in the first week? Or that we had say lizards that could become dinasaurs evolving larger and smaller... I don't know how you can apply an ID approach in any practical sense.
The ID approach simply states that this universe has the appearance of a Intelligent Mind, behind it’s manifestation.
DNA for example, as you know, is encoded within it, complex information, and complex information is only observed to come from minds. In a nutshell. Which seems reasonable to me.
I covered the other part of your question already.
