Darth_Yuthura Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 If by, "just as plausible" you mean, "have no differentiable physical evidence for either idea" then yes, that's quite true. Huh? There is physical evidence to show that evolution not only is very possible in its own right, but can be explained by the forces of nature alone. As for the origins of matter and energy... still working on that. In fact the majority of evidence I've seen that go into such theories make just as much sense with or without god thrown into the mix. If the existence of god doesn't seem to impact the theory, then why even replace 'unknown' with 'act of god' I'm more comfortable knowing something has yet to be determined than to assume that everything we can't *yet* explain has to be supernatural. I thought I had just explained that, under some concepts of God, the two options as you have given them do not exist. So is god NOT omnipotent? The only way it would not be within his means is if there is something he can't do. If there's something he can't do, he's not omnipotent. I'm not trying to clash swords again... I just don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I was referring to the ideas present in the post of yours that I was replying to: creationism in the sense of the-world-was-made-five-minutes-ago and theistic evolution. Obviously there is no way to distinguish between them using physical evidence, but I don't consider that a problem for the reasons I gave. So is god NOT omnipotent? The only way it would not be within his means is if there is something he can't do. If there's something he can't do, he's not omnipotent. I'm not trying to clash swords again... I just don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of this. I merely pointed out that you seem to be using a quite definite concept of God as if it were the only possible one, which it simply isn't. A great deal of people believe in a God who created evolution to produce people (again, a Catholic view). It's not necessarily an either-or question. You'll notice this point is not related to whether God is omnipotent or not. As for whether God can do something nonsensical: well, my favorite quote on that is this one from C.S. Lewis: "Nonsense is nonsense, even if we speak it of God." It is not that God "cannot do" anything nonsensical (as if he were being prevented from doing something); it's that there is literally no action that is described by nonsense, and so there is nothing for him to do. So, for example, saying that "God can't do evil things" imposes no limitations on his omnipotence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I was referring to the ideas present in the post of yours that I was replying to: creationism in the sense of the-world-was-made-five-minutes-ago and theistic evolution. Obviously there is no way to distinguish between them using physical evidence, but I don't consider that a problem for the reasons I gave. Yes, god could just as easily have created humans on the Moon. It wouldn't explain how humans could live in a vacuum, bombarded by radiation, where you burn up or freeze in sunlight and shadow. We obviously couldn't have originated there naturally, but God could have done it. Humans originating from the Moon would be next to impossible in nature, which would make creationism a fairly reasonable explanation for such an occurrence. No, we actually originated from Earth, where everything that we needed to live and evolve can be explained as a natural occurrence. Nothing absolutely defies logic if we collected ALL the evidence towards any mystery. Here's an example of what I mean. Exotic terrain: there are fossil remains of tropical organisms that have been found in Idaho... in a temperate zone. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so how did they get there? Does that mean we should assume the only way for the impossible to happen is that God created them in Idaho? OR Assume that the organisms lived near the equator when they lived and the fossil remains had been moved to where they are today. It turned out that those organisms had lived on a continental plate near the equator and that the drift theory lead them to conclude that it was carried north to where it is now. This used to be a very perplexing mystery, but with the introduction of the tectonic theory, it is quite clear how tropical fossils could exist in a temperate zone. ------- What is my point here? Everything about the earth and galaxy can be understood, so long as you find the evidence you need to make a reasonable conclusion. There are no mysteries in nature that are unsolvable. If there were, it would give credit to the creationist theory. But since it seems that everything in nature can be explanated... providing you find the evidence... what is to make people think that we can't discover the answer to our origins in nature? If we can, then would it be fair to say that god may never have existed after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 ..... Everything about the earth and galaxy can be understood, so long as you find the evidence you need to make a reasonable conclusion. There are no mysteries in nature that are unsolvable. If there were, it would give credit to the creationist theory. But since it seems that everything in nature can be explanated... providing you find the evidence... what is to make people think that we can't discover the answer to our origins in nature? If we can, then it means that god really may not have actually existed beyond an idea created by humans. I explicitly told you that we were discussing religious mythology in my second reply to you in this thread. I'm not sure why you insist on taking this mythology as if it was scientific theory, but I think that doing so is misguided. Muddling distinctions is a sure route to confusion in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Who's 'we'? The thread aims to ask people what they believe and why. I think that I bring up a valid point when it comes to the credibility of alternate theories. The existence of God is essentially a circular argument whereas evolution has physical backing. There are different theories of evolution, but the physical evidence exists that show organisms that have changed and adapted, taking on traits from their ancestor species. God as of yet exists only as an idea. The evidence that he exists is easy; we're surrounded by it. Proof that ties all that evidence to the making of the universe happening because of him... now that's hard. My reason for believing in evolution has been made quite clear, so I won't say it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I suppose one can believe whatever one wants to. But that doesn't mean that it's justifiable to conflate two very different systems like religion's mythological explanations with scientific explanations. It just means one has decided to do so. It doesn't seem as if there was much left to discuss on the subject, then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 We've now established that Darth_Yuthura and Samuel Dravis are apparently talking about two different things. On we go with the thread. @Darth_Yuthura--when you have the science to disprove God created the entire universe (note that the laws of science/physics break down at the point the Big Bang actually happens, so science _can't_ prove that), please let me know. I'll view that finding with great interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 @Darth_Yuthura--when you have the science to disprove God created the entire universe (note that the laws of science/physics break down at the point the Big Bang actually happens, so science _can't_ prove that), please let me know. I'll view that finding with great interest. Yes, the laws of physics change, but we can evaluate how they change already. We've barely brushed the surface so to speak, but we are trying to simulate the origins of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider 'God' Particles: http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/god-particle/ http://today.brown.edu/articles/2008/09/hadron-collider http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/09/10/2008-09-10_were_still_here_largest_particle_collide.html All of these are in regards to the massive particle accelerator in Switzerland that has been yielding some interesting results. Note that these sites are not going to provide much more than what news sources say, but it goes to show that the big bang isn't something science can't answer. You used the ever-frustrating 'impossible' in your statement, so just be aware of it. As in "science can't prove that." ---------- Now I have a counter request: when you have the proof to show me that God was responsible for the big bang, I'd be interested in that. Whether God exists still remains unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Trying to prove or disprove God's existence is a fool's errand. Are you done hijacking this thread yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 *Steps aside and gestures others to resume* It never was my expectation to sway anyone's beliefs in all this, as I hadn't a stake in any of it one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 You could've fooled me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 i am with yuo 110% darth yuthura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I don't see the metaphor. The universe isn't the same from one moment to the next. It is very dynamic and not a self-perpetuated and predictable machine producing exactly what you want, as you are suggesting. If I decided to go out and commit mass murder just to prove my point, I control my own actions... not god. That being so, I and everyone else fall outside the realm of what God is responsible for. If God's responsibility ended with human actions... If an animal changed its behavior because of human activity, then you should take that into account as to how our actions... assuming God wanted us to be more than drones... will affect the rest of nature as god didn't intend. That goes to show that we have free will and that humans can and do impact the galaxy in a way that god did not intend. Unless god stepped in to facilitate the process of evolution, I really don't see how humans could be considered his creation. I still believe they are a creation of nature, as god didn't create us as he did in the bible. I can't explain the origins of life or the universe, but I hope we eventually find the answers to those questions. You are misunderstanding. I'm not saying God is responsible for our actions nor suggesting that the world is merely static. You claimed: You cannot say that God created humans if he actually didn't. You can proclaim that through evolution, creation(s) of god culminated to what are now humans. If he didn't create humans if evolution was the cause for our existence. which does not address the point you were trying to counter: Also, at the risk of upsetting you here, you're incorrect in asserting that if God did set evolution into play that man would not be a creation of his. If God did use evolution to unfold life as we know it, then all things natural are his creation. Your statement only serves to areaffirm your unwavering dedication to the idea that God/gods have no place in the universe, beyond perhaps fairy tales. While I appreciate that you are likely an atheist, you're failing to address the point. First, the above statement is a conditional. IF God created the universe and all life via evolution, he is responsible for the creation of mankind. Even using my example of robots, my contention was that you'd be responsible for the creation of the robots, not their subsequent actions (or at least not directly), which your counterargument about grandparents seemed to suggest. You also are incapable of determining whether God/gods/aliens/etc..created mankind. That much should be elemental to you. None of us were there when the universe was created. Since we can not irrefutably say whether God created (via evolution or other mechanisms) mankind, then possibilities are open. I think you're getting more caught up in what you see as probabilities....ie no scientific proof of God's existence suggests no hand in mankind's creation, hence T of E only probable explanation for man's existence. The problem is that you are saying that God and evolution are totally incompatible re the creation of mankind (NOT that God might not exist), but are incapable of proving your "ex cathedra" statement. Go back and REREAD what I said. I used that absolute statement properly. I said Evolution and Creationism cannot both be right because one directly defeats the other. I did not (in fact I left open the possibility that God was involved) say that the acceptance of evolution meant that god didn't exist. Would you say this is inaccurate? Close, but no cookie. You aren't merely asserting that YEC is incompatible with evolution, but that the concept of a creator is incompatible with the idea of evolution. Essentially....God may in fact exist, but he was an "innocent bystander" as things unfolded. In that sense, this discussion can really only get bogged down in yet another atheism vs theism fight. Suffice it to say that you are only really willing to consider one possibility, despite a lack of definitive solid proof and I'm open to the possibilies that there may be a god/God and there might not be that accounts for all the glory of the universe. No offense, but if you don't get it, you probably never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Trying to prove or disprove God's existence is a fool's errand. Definition:Circular argument: Any discussion in which one argues the conclusion as a premise; a discussion that makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument. Given that believers in God assume that he exists unconditionally, I don't have the means to convince them otherwise. I can't explain the origins of the universe, but neither can those who support Creation prove that God exists. If I saw proof that God exists, then I would endorse the Creation(ism) as the most likely theory. But God has to be proven to exist before that theory has some ground to stand upon. "Tick paralysis is usually accompanied by a tick." ~Robert Sean Leonard One of the reasons why I am so intensely against creation or the existence of god is because there is no proof that links our existence to a supernatural being. What if it were just a supernatural power? If someone in a court room were pleading insanity with a theory that isn't accepted by the scientific community, then the defense would have to prove the theory before it could be used as evidence. Otherwise it's just an excuse that makes it more difficult for those who actually have the symptoms to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 If you're interested, DY, I offer a rather different way of looking at things in the Senate here. As such, religion is more like a primitive reaction (along the lines of laughing, etc) and not an opinion that people come to because the evidence in favor of it is overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Definition:Circular argument: Any discussion in which one argues the conclusion as a premise; a discussion that makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument. You still don't get it, do you? Pot; kettle; black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 You still don't get it, do you? Pot; kettle; black. And no, I don't believe God are stupid. Those that create self-fulfilling arguments either are mixed up or making an assumption that has yet to be proven. What if I don't believe in God? Maybe instead of using god to satisfy your side of the argument, use your side of the argument to prove that god exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 And no, I don't believe God are stupid. Those that create self-fulfilling arguments either are mixed up or making an assumption that has yet to be proven. What if I don't believe in God? Maybe instead of using god to satisfy your side of the argument, use your side of the argument to prove that god exists. Wait...wasn't that a different thread? Oh right...it got closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks. Maybe some of you are color blind. Just in case I will repeat. Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks May I also suggest looking over the rules again. Please play particular attention to rules 4 and 5. 4. Personal attacks: We realize many of the topics in Kavar's are controversial or sensitive. However, you need to keep your posts as polite as possible. Attacking other posters, either directly or through veiled insinuation and sarcasm, is not allowed on this forum. If you're feeling the need to make sarcastic comments or attacks on someone, you need to calm down or simply agree to disagree with that person. Posts that are racist, homophobic, sexist, or that directly or indirectly attack someone's character are ad hominem attacks and are not allowed. Veiled insinuations, sarcastic comments, or other impoliteness are also unacceptable, and the poster may well receive sanctions for this behavior. 5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.[/Quote] You may also want to check out #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 What if I don't believe in God? Maybe instead of using god to satisfy your side of the argument, use your side of the argument to prove that god exists. As I've said before: I couldn't care less whether or you believe in God or not. I am under no obligation to prove anything to you because, unlike you, I am not trying to dictate what others should believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 With all the commotion, I seemed to neglect something that I really should have asked at the beginning of this debate. I can't possibly judge whether or not something exists without a clearer understanding of the belief itself. Since I do not understand it, I must ask for someone to please define God. What part of this did you not understand? Let's not turn this into a theism/atheism debate--we have a few threads for that discussion already. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.