Really?
How do you show that the physical phenomena are caused by god?
why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
How do you show that the physical phenomena are caused by god?
"Your testing my trivia Spidey
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Ok.
I'd like to know that too.
I absolutely hate religiousness based or archaeology, historiography, chemistry, physics and such!
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This is probably true of many conventional theists. I can readily envision a God that has no interest whatsoever in life, or only an incidental interest in it. I can also envisage a God who doesn't have a plan. On the days when my agnosticism veers to theism this is the kind of God I think most likely.
They are only going to see it as part of the plan if they believe that God has a plan and that that plan includes life. These are not prerequsites for being a theist.
which returns us to my original question, why should it need to have a purpose? You seem fearful of the possibility that life has no purpose. Why bother to believe it is true if it serves no purpose, you ask. Because if it is true - and all the evidence points that way - then it would be deceitful self deluding, dishonest and cowardly not to accept it.
because there is no evidence that the scriptures are literally true.
It can be argued, but the argument is damnaed weak. When I was a Christian I had absolutely no difficulty accepting evolution as part of God's plan. I found it to be wholly consistent with scripture and a magnificent demonstration of God's awesome power and inventiveness.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
It's just about testing physical phenomena to support an argument not religiousness based on respected fields of science. :bugeye:
But what's wrong with religiousness based on archaeology and historiography.
It can only last as long as the current theory in archaeology and historiography; and theories in archaeology and historiography tend to get overturned every few decades.
Archaeology and historiography are essentially conjecture, stories built around a few artifacts. Those same artifacts could be connected by different stories, especially given new findings.
Which is precisely what happens.
Ophiolite,
That's irrelevant.
Anybody can envision anything they can think of.
There are no ''pre-requisites for being a theist, as theism isn't a club.
A theist is described as such because of their belief.
Because everything I know about serves a purpose, even if it doesn't directly interact with me. So I assume that everything has a purpose. What I regard as evolution serves a purpose, so why wouldn't what you regard as evolution be the same?
Fearful? Interesting description.
What is it based on?
So one is all of these things because one cannot see that ALL the evidence points that way?
I think you have it the wrong way round.
It IS all of those things if one accepts it as true, off the back of someone who tells you all the evidence points that way,
without knowing it for oneself.
You're absolutely sure their is nothing in any scripture that is literally true?
Well, you've answered my original question: what is he point of evolution? If creation is a fact.
jan.
at
That's irrelevant.
Anybody can envision anything they can think of.
There are no ''pre-requisites for being a theist, as theism isn't a club.
A theist is described as such because of their belief.
Because everything I know about serves a purpose, even if it doesn't directly interact with me. So I assume that everything has a purpose. What I regard as evolution serves a purpose, so why wouldn't what you regard as evolution be the same?
Fearful? Interesting description.
What is it based on?
So one is all of these things because one cannot see that ALL the evidence points that way?
I think you have it the wrong way round.
It IS all of those things if one accepts it as true, off the back of someone who tells you all the evidence points that way,
without knowing it for oneself.
You're absolutely sure their is nothing in any scripture that is literally true?
Well, you've answered my original question: what is he point of evolution? If creation is a fact.
jan.
@Jan --
That's not what Ophiolite said, he said that there's no evidence that the scriptures are not literal fact. It may be a fine distinction but it is an important one. There may very well be things in scripture that are literal fact(other than the whole six day creation bollocks) but we have no evidence that this is the case and thus no reason to suspect it to be true.
But I can give you a better reason not to accept the creation story of Genesis if you want to maintain that your god is anything but an incompetent tinkerer, just look around you at the animal kingdom. We animals are so poorly designed that if a first year engineering student came up with the plans for the human body he'd be expelled immediately. We have eyes that are backwards and upside down, a spine that doesn't function properly when we walk upright on two legs(it works better when we hunch on all fours like our ancestors did), a food tube that shares space with the windpipe making it possible to choke to death, a sewer running right through the playground, and an organ that does nothing but randomly kill us. Do you call that good design? I certainly don't, and that doesn't even cover the wastefulness of god if he designed everything through evolution. More than 99% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct, that's not good design, that's a malicious kid with a magnifying glass.
Furthermore if god worked through evolution then we know that he didn't work at all. Evolution through natural selection is a completely blind process, with no end-goal in mind(and no mind). We can know this because evolution always chooses short-term benefit over long-term stability, hence the large number of species going extinct. Not exactly the work of a genius, eh?
That's not what Ophiolite said, he said that there's no evidence that the scriptures are not literal fact. It may be a fine distinction but it is an important one. There may very well be things in scripture that are literal fact(other than the whole six day creation bollocks) but we have no evidence that this is the case and thus no reason to suspect it to be true.
But I can give you a better reason not to accept the creation story of Genesis if you want to maintain that your god is anything but an incompetent tinkerer, just look around you at the animal kingdom. We animals are so poorly designed that if a first year engineering student came up with the plans for the human body he'd be expelled immediately. We have eyes that are backwards and upside down, a spine that doesn't function properly when we walk upright on two legs(it works better when we hunch on all fours like our ancestors did), a food tube that shares space with the windpipe making it possible to choke to death, a sewer running right through the playground, and an organ that does nothing but randomly kill us. Do you call that good design? I certainly don't, and that doesn't even cover the wastefulness of god if he designed everything through evolution. More than 99% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct, that's not good design, that's a malicious kid with a magnifying glass.
Furthermore if god worked through evolution then we know that he didn't work at all. Evolution through natural selection is a completely blind process, with no end-goal in mind(and no mind). We can know this because evolution always chooses short-term benefit over long-term stability, hence the large number of species going extinct. Not exactly the work of a genius, eh?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It is not irrelevant. You stated that theists think God has a plan. I demonstrated that not all theists are required to think God has a plan.
Exactly. Thereofre there is no requirement for a theist to believe that God has a plan. A theist can believe thatGod exists, but he has no plan. Or he can believe that God has a plan, but it does not include life, or man, or evolution, or anything else you care to name.
Really! Amazing. What is the purpose of the Andromeda galaxy? What is the purpose of the third ash tree to the left on my driveway. You are displaying the habit, possibly uniqe to humans, of imposing your own interpretation on the universe. There is little or no evidence that things in general have a purpose, other than what we assign to them.
It is based upon the cavalier way in which you imagine purpose where no evidence for purpose exists. You seem driven to believe that things must have a purpose, else your life is without purpose. I may be mistaken, but your own words deliver this message rather powerfully.
Arioch has correctly explained why your question was misguided.
Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding - if God created the universe and had a plan for man, or at least an intelligent, self aware entity, then evolution was the means by which he produced it. If God created the universe for some other reason, then evolution has no purpose - it just is, a side effect of some other requirement.
Then it wouldn't be evolution. I think everyone would be very interested in evidence that forced a changing in our understanding of evolution, but so far the data compliments and refines the theory instead of redefining it.
Arioch,,
Granted. But there is a difference between ''the truth'' and ''a fact''.
I think you're being antagonistic. While I don't understand the idea of six twenty four hour days, and can't agree with it. There is still the idea of six days according to a different perspective, much greater than our own.
You can't possibly think that idea is bollocks, unless you know that it is bollox in the same way you can assert 6x24hr days is bollocks.
I've heard this argument before, and I find it hard to believe that it's being taken seriously.
But, we have the ability to understand God.
What more could you ask for?
With arguments and observations like this, you now see why I doubt you ever was a theist.
Which reminds me, are you going to respond to my last response to you?
If the universe is a body which has a specif nature, and due to that nature evolution occurs, then what is driving the body?
As an atheist, you see nature as the driver, as a theist I believe God is the driver. I veiw it much like my own body.
It acts according to its nature, not really needing my intervention, but without me it ceases to be. So the whole idea of purpose is wrapped up
in the complete whole.
That's the fundamental difference between atheism and theism at the extreme levels.
jan.
Granted. But there is a difference between ''the truth'' and ''a fact''.
I think you're being antagonistic. While I don't understand the idea of six twenty four hour days, and can't agree with it. There is still the idea of six days according to a different perspective, much greater than our own.
You can't possibly think that idea is bollocks, unless you know that it is bollox in the same way you can assert 6x24hr days is bollocks.
I've heard this argument before, and I find it hard to believe that it's being taken seriously.
But, we have the ability to understand God.
What more could you ask for?
With arguments and observations like this, you now see why I doubt you ever was a theist.
Which reminds me, are you going to respond to my last response to you?
If the universe is a body which has a specif nature, and due to that nature evolution occurs, then what is driving the body?
As an atheist, you see nature as the driver, as a theist I believe God is the driver. I veiw it much like my own body.
It acts according to its nature, not really needing my intervention, but without me it ceases to be. So the whole idea of purpose is wrapped up
in the complete whole.
That's the fundamental difference between atheism and theism at the extreme levels.
jan.
There is no data to support the notion that evolution is the result of anything but cause and effect.
So what? I notice you don't refute it.
I think so. You don't like that the data doesn't support your wish for a transcendent being that cares about us, so you make up another notion that the transcendent being can't have any data that supports it. This in spite the fact that were there any data, religious people would be all over it.
My point is it, makes no difference.
I think everything is data from a supreme intelligence, and before you start, I know that is NOT scientific evidence. But science can't even come close to showing otherwise, and that's not a criticism.
So what do you suggest?
jan.