Some logic for both sides...

[Lori_7]

lol

Wow.
I can't say that I've ever seen an ad hominem before with a typo.

lol

It's no wonder you're a Theist.

Alas, I won't resort to pointless name-calling; some of us aren't children.

here's an idea...

why don't you actually offer something to the discussion besides an attack?

consider it a challenge. and btw, i am not only a theist, i am a human being, a woman, and a fairly kind person who is wondering what i ever did to you to make you so hostile. ok, no i'm not. i know that your hostility towards me is nothing but a show of insecurity, disrespect, human indecency, and what the psychologists like to call sociopathy. this is a discussion forum; check into it.

 

[glaucon]

here's an idea...

why don't you actually offer something to the discussion besides an attack?

consider it a challenge. and btw, i am not only a theist, i am a human being, a woman, and a fairly kind person who is wondering what i ever did to you to make you so hostile. ok, no i'm not. i know that your hostility towards me is nothing but a show of insecurity, disrespect, human indecency, and what the psychologists like to call sociopathy. this is a discussion forum; check into it.

Again you display nothing but a pedantic misunderstanding. A fine example of how low this site has sunk as of late. This is actually a forum for reasonable discussion, something that you are apparently entirely incapable of, or blissfully ignorant of.

Unlike you, who started this thread, I have done nothing but attempt to reign this thread into some semblance of reasonable discussion. As most theists are wont to do, you've done nothing but fall back upon emotive platitudes, having nothing at all to do with logic.

As far as your personal attacks go, I've already made my comment. If you'd like a link to a Dictionary of Philosophy, I would be happy to provide one for you.

Unlike you, I do not need a metaphysical safety blanket to get through my day. And since you've brought up psychology, I suggest you look into delusions, I'm sure it would be of great assistance to you. Although I somehow doubt you would see the relevance.

p.s.: An essential part of being a theist is humility; look into it.

 

[Saquist]

well, given that there is no beginning or end, and so the bible only is relevant to a small window of time that is not really a constraint, but only a perceived one, then i think a lot of people are assuming the wrong thing about genesis.

That's why I'm not following you.
We really don't know how long those days in Genesis were.
But while God is infinite in both direction the Earth is not.
Clearly the Earth has been here more than 12,000 year, 6,000 years and etc.
Creation was completed. That's the purpose of the "seven" days to symbolize a complete period of them and it's used enough time in the bible to know that it is symbolic. Seven is complet in the Bible...

Quite simplly if creation is continuing and it wasn't "good" like the bible indicates then this would be contradiction. It wouldn't be complete.

 

[rjr6]

Evolution is the process by which God is creating us.

Will evolution remain a natural force?

 

[Yorda]

Will evolution remain a natural force?

atheists are theists too, they just call god a force, like in star wars. what is a natural force? how does it work?

 

[glaucon]

atheists are theists too, they just call god a force, like in star wars. what is a natural force? how does it work?

Incorrect. Not all atheists have such a 'force' they believe in.

 

[Yorda]

natural forces created humans and everything and they maintain everything... so how are they different from god(s)?

that's right... natural force is just a modern word for magic, miracle or god. it's whatwedontunderstand.

 

[glaucon]

natural forces created humans and everything and they maintain everything... so how are they different from god(s)?

that's right... natural force is just a modern word for magic, miracle or god. it's whatwedontunderstand.

It's what we don't yet understand.

And I fail to see any necessity to imply teleology.
Simply because a process occurs, doesn't mean that it is directed.

 

[Lori_7]

That's why I'm not following you.
We really don't know how long those days in Genesis were.
But while God is infinite in both direction the Earth is not.
Clearly the Earth has been here more than 12,000 year, 6,000 years and etc.
Creation was completed. That's the purpose of the "seven" days to symbolize a complete period of them and it's used enough time in the bible to know that it is symbolic. Seven is complet in the Bible...

Quite simplly if creation is continuing and it wasn't "good" like the bible indicates then this would be contradiction. It wouldn't be complete.

well ok, maybe there is a diffence between creation and adaptation then, but he's definitely not finished. my point of view is that he may be finished when we are eternal...when we are perfect. then again, there has to be more to it than that, if there is no end. i'm glad you brought up the point that we don't know what those 7 days has been comprised of, because the underlying idea for this blog is that in my opinion, a lot of people who believe the bible, really don't understand it, and a lot of people who don't believe, take their word for it. these people are so grounded in their arguements, they've lost their sight.

 

[Lori_7]

Will evolution remain a natural force?

i was just wondering that earlier...

if there would ever be a state of existence reached, where there was perfect balance. no death, no destruction necessary, in a state of eternal existance.

it seems to be what god is working towards; that is where all of our hope lies.

 

[Lori_7]

natural forces created humans and everything and they maintain everything... so how are they different from god(s)?

that's right... natural force is just a modern word for magic, miracle or god. it's whatwedontunderstand.

i love it when you make one long word out of several separate smaller words.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Incorrect. Not all atheists have such a 'force' they believe in.

I only believe in myself, nothing more.

 

[Lori_7]

I only believe in myself, nothing more.

you're a force.

 

[Saquist]

well ok, maybe there is a diffence between creation and adaptation then, but he's definitely not finished. my point of view is that he may be finished when we are eternal...when we are perfect. then again, there has to be more to it than that, if there is no end. i'm glad you brought up the point that we don't know what those 7 days has been comprised of, because the underlying idea for this blog is that in my opinion, a lot of people who believe the bible, really don't understand it, and a lot of people who don't believe, take their word for it. these people are so grounded in their arguements, they've lost their sight.

well I think correcting a error in the creation is not the same as finishing it.
When he completed those seven days everything was perfect and some one came and unraveled the whole thing.

Frankly I'm surprised your' not one of those "6 days" people. it's intresting to see someone who isn't convinced the king of eternity need to rush through the entire process. These people have no idea how an artist works...Why rush...there is no dead line.

 

[Myles]

well, given that there is no beginning or end, and so the bible only is relevant to a small window of time that is not really a constraint, but only a perceived one, then i think a lot of people are assuming the wrong thing about genesis.

The bible is the perceived word of god by some, which means that genesis is also perceived. Can you offer any facts ?

 

[Yorda]

It's what we don't yet understand.

according to science, natural laws control everything, so if we don't understand them we understand nothing. and since we have understood nothing for thousands of years, what makes us think that we can understand something else in the future? after all... even if we figure out the cause of natural laws, we have to explain what caused THAT cause, ad infinitum.

and so, we say that god (the causeless cause) explains and causes everything.

And I fail to see any necessity to imply teleology.
Simply because a process occurs, doesn't mean that it is directed.

it's very obvious that all creatures have a design. i fail to see the need to invent something weird like 'natural laws'. we aren't controlled by mindless natural laws, so why would animals? and if animals are controlled by the mind, why would plants and matter be any different?

Frankly I'm surprised your' not one of those "6 days" people. it's intresting to see someone who isn't convinced the king of eternity need to rush through the entire process.

to say that god created the universe 6000 years ago is not too far from the truth... but it's even closer to say that he created it 7 seconds ago. the present is a zero point where everything begins and ends at the same time. alpha and omega.

 

[Vkothii]

You guys don't get it.
Evolution isn't a process that "changes" or causes life to change. It's an explanation of how lifeforms that are able to exploit the environment survive, and change when the environment changes, including when they change it.

It explains what life is, and why it evolves the way it does. It's called "Origin of Species", because it explains why speciation occurs.

 

[Saquist]

Could you try that again in more laymen terms Yorda

 

[Sarkus]

according to science, natural laws control everything, so if we don't understand them we understand nothing. and since we have understood nothing for thousands of years, what makes us think that we can understand something else in the future? after all... even if we figure out the cause of natural laws, we have to explain what caused THAT cause, ad infinitum.
and so, we say that god (the causeless cause) explains and causes everything.

So you're quite happy to stop at God as the original cause... that has no cause?
All you're doing with "God did it" is pushing the question back a step further.

So... who caused God?

it's very obvious that all creatures have a design.

"Very obvious" to who? And who is this "design" by?
If it is design by evolution... then the design is nothing but adaptation to the environment.
Or are you implying a designer other than the environment?

i fail to see the need to invent something weird like 'natural laws'.

But you're okay to invent something weird called "God"?

we aren't controlled by mindless natural laws, so why would animals? and if animals are controlled by the mind, why would plants and matter be any different?

An eductation in Biology might help answer this to some degree.
And please indicate your evidence for saying that we "aren't controlled by mindless natural laws".
And you do realise that humans ARE just animals... albeit animals who have risen above the others in terms of intellect and self-awareness.

to say that god created the universe 6000 years ago is not too far from the truth... but it's even closer to say that he created it 7 seconds ago. the present is a zero point where everything begins and ends at the same time. alpha and omega.

Eh?

 

[Myles]

That's why I'm not following you.
We really don't know how long those days in Genesis were.
But while God is infinite in both direction the Earth is not.
Clearly the Earth has been here more than 12,000 year, 6,000 years and etc.
Creation was completed. That's the purpose of the "seven" days to symbolize a complete period of them and it's used enough time in the bible to know that it is symbolic. Seven is complet in the Bible...

Quite simplly if creation is continuing and it wasn't "good" like the bible indicates then this would be contradiction. It wouldn't be complete.

What logic. The definition of a day is approximately 24 hours,The seven days is symbolic. Why ? Why does the bible not give a straightforward figure. ?
How do you know god is infinite in both directions ? Is he not multidirectional ?

So, according to your view, seven days is symbolic because you accept that the earth is more than 6, 000 years old. It follows that a day must have been something of the order of 4.6 billion years/7. That one hell of a long day.

Now Methusulah lived for about 1.000 years ,so on your timescale he actually lived for 365, 000 X ( 4.6 billion/ 7 ) days. What symbolism is at work here ? It's all very confusing, but I'm sure you have an answer.