If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

Precisely. God(s) make problems easy. Science makes answers meaningful.

It is noteworthy that Flores and others find 'easy problems' so comforting and seductive, because it says much about the draw of religion. But the claim (or, more accurately, desire) is inherently dissatisfying, because 'God(s) did it'

• gets you nowhere beyond Deism, while it
• provides nothing but a first cause, as it
• eliminates any basis for presuming the generalizability and extensibility of scientific descriptions.

No longer is

• F=ma

sufficient or reasonable. In Flores' The Universe Made Easy it necessarily becomes

• F=ma, here and now and only with the grace of God(s).

That is why the creationist typically harbors a theology that goes far beyond simplistic explanations of a first cause.

"God(s) did it." is not simply useless. It is the less than useless Trojan horse of superstitious absurdities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it is not an insult if you take it as what it means. ill rephrase: it is only simpler if you accept a lack of knowledge. by simply saying god created it and we never understand means you have stopped asking questions and accepted ignorance. that is not insult. is what is happening by accepting that explanation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shrubby pegasus:

I am not saying that I have entire agreement with what anyone said, but you answered Flores in that manner, it said to me that anyone who fails to agree with, or see things as you, is ignorant. There is a verse in the Bible that reads, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." Therefore, this leads me to believe that the shoe has been on the other foot, at least once. But never mind all that. Here is the assumption you smug propogators make that I find so ridiculous that I scarcely address it, but I will right here and now. What makes any of you who would denounce God Almighty, and any who believe, think that if one is believer in Creation, they learn nothing. One can believe that God is the Creator, and still study evolution, and still respect science and the scientist who work so hard for the benefit of mankind. In simple terms, you believe what you want to believe and attack on that basis. So, who is ignorant? In truth, we all have areas wherein we are ignorant. We all have areas wherein we assume too much, probably! However, denying that God is, does not make you a smart person, no matter how much you would like to think it does.

What you believe is your business, but if the only way some of you who are afraid not to be athiests can object to a different way of believing is by calling the person ignorant, weak-minded, full of fantasy, etc. (I cannot recall all of them), then why bother, if opinion is so low, unless you enjoy feeling superior. Feeling superior is ignorant, in my book.

I should like to think that intelligent folks would realize that everyone is not going to agree with them. Science does not belong to one group exclusively. Scientists study creation, whether they call it that or not. Evolution is all around and about, whether we call it that or not. PMT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Consequent Athiest writes: "the claim (or, more accurately, desire) is inherently dissatisfying,"

You wish! How can you possibly even guess what it is like to know that God is? I say this, in all sincerity, because, my brother, if you do not know that God is, you never did, you were only believing what you had been told. There is nothing dissatisfying about it. I promise. It is a sad truth that not all who say, "Lord, Lord" truly know God's power. Some like to believe, because it is more convenient or simply because they think it is the thing to do, much like the reasons people claim to be athiests. PMT

 

Actually, we do not "denounce God Almighty" but, rather, denounce the myth of "God Almighty" as unworthy of belief. Parenthitically, just which "God Almighty" do you endorse, and upon what bases do you denounce the rest?

That is absolutely true. For example, the brilliant Edward O. Wilson defines himself as a Deist.

Those attributions apply only to those who are "ignorant, weak-minded, full of fantasy", and intent on counterposing superstitious poppycock and fairy-tails to science, as is true of many, if not most, of those who parade under the banner of "creationism". It does not apply to the many theistic scientists whose endeavors are ridiculed by those creationist buffoons. Good correction.

 

As I said, it is so inherently dissatisfying that most creationist are unwilling to stop with Deism, but must wallow in the thin gruel of Christology or some equally vacuous equivalent.

There is a whole range of psychosis and delussions about which I know very little. Your point?

 

im not claiming im exempt from ignorance, im stating that im not satisfied with that as an explanation. ignorance does not provide me answer, so im going to continue to probe for answers and science is the only tool we have that can grant anything other than speculation

also, i never said science and a belief in god are incompatible. but stating that god made it so, therefore it is leaves more questions than answers. inherent in that statement is a paradox. to state it that simply and be satisfied is displaying a satisfaction with ignorance. you are satisified with that lack of knowledge. i am not

 

I just love it when you get preachy, but it renders your comments no less vacuous.

 

Consequent Athiest: But God Almight is not a myth, dear heart. Not for one moment will I try to prove God to you. He needs not to be explained; He needs not to be found or visited; He needs only to be acknowledged. I would rather have you think that I am ignorant and weak than to accept to "prove." I cannot prove God to you. I probably should not protest when anyone who believes is called ignorant and weak, but I an educated human, and do resent such remarks, but they take nothing from me. It just hurts a bit anytime there is such gross misunderstanding. I have nothing against you, nor do I think you are going to hell. You simply do not believe, which, of course will change nothing, but you. PMT

 

S.P. wrote: im not claiming im exempt from ignorance, im stating that im not satisfied with that as an explanation. ignorance does not provide me answer, so im going to continue to probe for answers and science is the only tool we have that can grant anything other than speculation

also, i never said science and a belief in god are incompatible. but stating that god made it so, therefore it is leaves more questions than answers. inherent in that statement is a paradox. to state it that simply and be satisfied is displaying a satisfaction with ignorance. you are satisified with that lack of knowledge. i am not

There is a lot that you never said, Sir. But you do say: "to state it that simply and be satisfied is displaying a satisfaction with ignorance." I tend to think that you overrate what you know. Most who think they know so much know little. Of course, there are things of which I am ignorant. I believe many things, in which knowledge I may grown, or my concepts could change, but to not believe that God is would be foolish for me, because I know better. How can you expect to believe in anything if you constantly fill you head with foolishness? If you think it is ignorant to believe that God is, and to not challenge it constantly, what is that? Why would I challenge it?... just so I could convince "experts" like yourself that I am smart? Nay!

My mind is open to learn, to be enlightened, but I truly believe that true enlightenment comes from God. I guess I simply do not understand why anyone would want to spend his life and his time denying his Creator, when there is so much else. PMT

 

Consequent Athiest writes: "Those attributions apply only to those who are "ignorant, weak-minded, full of fantasy", and intent on counterposing superstitious poppycock and fairy-tails to science, as is true of many, if not most, of those who parade under the banner of "creationism". It does not apply to the many theistic scientists whose endeavors are ridiculed by those creationist buffoons. Good correction."

Sorry, I missed reponding to this. I did want to say that perhaps you, with your good heart and open mind, do not necessarily put all believers into one category. But this is not true of all, and you know it. Constantly implying -or saying right out- that believers are content with limited knowledge, or are happy with their ignorance is offensive to me. Perhaps this is something I should overcome, but I doubt that I will.
From my point of view, those who make no attempt to become acquainted with their Creator, are the ones content with limitations and ignorance. Can you understand this at all. I am not saying that you are one of this, because you give me the impression that you are not high and mighty, but simply stating what you think. With a jab now and again, but basicically sincere. I could be wrong, but just as I know there is an ocean, that their are mountains and valleys, waterfalls and crawdads, I know there is God. I am not much for miracles, because I perceive that it has all been done, and that what we call miracles is but a learning experience. Is this too simple-minded?

I like history, and history gives us a good picture of mankind and his fallacies, but it also leave traces of his excellence. Well, this world, as we look upon it, does about the same. Most of what is not okay, is not okay, because of man. This is what I see.
PMT

 

if they find the missing link on the moon, would this shake your belief in God?

if they prove that aliens exist, would this shatter your belief in God?

If technology takes us beyond space to other worlds, will you still believe in God?

this is where science and religion will finally meet.
Aliens hardly know any more than we do about God.

God doesnt sit and watch his world, tweaking it and making changes.
There are spirits in higher densities than us (3rd) that do his bidding, even if they are unaware they are. these are known as Angels, Spirits, Ghosts, and even include the help of Aliens.
We to, help promote God's will, thru church or preaching or simply by helping others in Need. Religion is not required either.

God created *the universe* and this was a very long time ago. since then life forms have emerged thru natural evolution, after of course the alignments of planets and whatnot (perhaps natural or maybe influenced by the almighty).

What humans dont realize is that God didnt Create the earth. God created the universe, which in turn, after enough time, gave birth to our galaxy which in turn gave birth to our sun and planets. As you can see this is not how we think of 'God creating everything'

Humans will be suprised to learn that Life can EVOLVE non-naturally, or better said, EVOLUTION can be assisted by already advanced life forms.
Where some life occurs naturally (especially in the beggining of time, whereas there wasnt any previous advanced life to help), some planets need help or are picked to be helped by other life forms, and all of this is done in a very organized manner, with councils deciding if it is righteous to interfere with a planet's 'destiny' and who will be the best peoples for the job.

Humans will be even more baffled to learn that Humankind was one life form that was assisted in its evolutionary development. Refer to the "missing link"
Genetical Engineering took place on several different Apes (races) in hopes of finding the most suitable body for Humans to capacitate with intelligence and creativity (soul). When these genetically engineered apes were placed back on earth, the engineers watched as the animal progressed and reproduced, carefully documenting all aspects of the Genetic Engineer Program.
This can equate to what some of you claim as "God watching over", it has been said our engineers were stationed on the moon, where they could watch the earth during their engineering programs. this is why i said if they found the missing link on the moon, would u change your beliefs.

thus, this brings evolution and god together, finally.
the ape theory isnt completely false, as u have just read.

taking my wild acquisation at face value, if other life forms seeded us onto this planet, AKA 'grabbed an ape, genetically engineered him, sent him back down to earth' - then the flaw in evolution that Apes still exist would no longer be a flaw. it makes sense, that if a few apes were picked to genetically enhance, then placed back on earth; that the other apes would most definetely still be there!

definetely not true

true to an extent. we are as evolved as we'll get RIGHT NOW, obviously.
but we are still evolving.
Humans born with more DNA strands...
Babies born magnetically lighter...
Mutations and Anamolies...

and there is alot to come !

 

Verses a creation that does not need tweaking either because it is perfect or because it is adaptive, capable of self-adjustment and development. When I consider the magnitude of God I simply find the concept of miraculous intercession to be too limiting, too human.

I'm not sure where you get A from. Why would each particle need to possess infinite knowledge? You seem to be indicating determinism which I don't believe is evident but find irrelevant even if it is so. We might also want to consider that the Universe may in fact be a unified whole rather than a bundle of disparate components.

Ah, but I don't believe in dichotomies. They're unrealistic simplifications, categorical errors. Darkness is only the absence of light not its opposite, black is the absorption of light while white is its reflection but nowhere is there perfect black or white. Similarly good and evil cannot be simply taken as polar opposites, they are conditional. Scientists are not the only ones who sometimes mistake their models for reality.

To what end? One tests only that which one is unsure of. Wouldn't God already know what it had wrought?

I don't mean to offend but is God insecure or weak to be intolerant of criticism? If so I have no chance of heaven.

I understand the concept, I just see nothing to warrant such a belief. Nor can I justify that such a belief is expected; nay demanded. I am a limited being and I do my best. If that's not good enough so be it. I will not bend to fear.

I used "creation" deliberately. I don't personally believe in creation but I am not so close-minded that I cannot relate to the concept of God. Assuming God does exist I cannot perceive this world as a veil that God hides behind but conversely as the very expression of God's existence (if not God itself).

Purpose is self defined in relation to the world around us. This is the very essence of life, consciousness, and free will (the possible mechanics of which I will leave aside for now). It does not flow heedlessly and helplessly downhill but works against entropy towards its own ends. As self-effecting beings we cannot be held to purpose that is not our own. As intelligent creatures we can begin to perceive matters of greater complexity and import than simple survival. We have begun to perceive the interrelation between ourselves and conditions far greater than ourselves.

~Raithere

 

ZONABI POSTED:
"if they find the missing link on the moon, would this shake your belief in God?

if they prove that aliens exist, would this shatter your belief in God?

If technology takes us beyond space to other worlds, will you still believe in God?

this is where science and religion will finally meet.
Aliens hardly know any more than we do about God."

Just where are you coming from with these questions. Of course, none of these would shake one who knows that God is, so what is the point of this? I am serious. Please explain. Thanks. PMT

 

I really cannot understand why people appeal to science to as showing that a Creator God doesn't exist. Science is no better than religion on explaining anything significant. Why is a Big Bang more plausible than God, or vice versa? They are both inexplicable in principle.

Of course some concepts of God are daft. Just like some concepts of science. This doesn't mean that neither have any truth in them. There is obviously more to the universe than science can explain, as Plato famously pointed out. But also an eternal God is no explanation of anything. The arguments between science and Christianity keep going only because they are similar to each other in structure. Assume an axiom and build that assumption into everything that follows then argue forever about which assumption is true.

 

As usual, Canute, you are quite correct. However, science includes an element of doubt about it's basic premises, while most religions hold their opinions to be absolute.

 

science doesnt claim that it can prove that god doesnt exist. all we say is that you cant prove that god exists. your comparison between religion and science is very naive and demonstrates that you dont really know how science works. no progress is made in science without some evidence. you cant make a claim in science without evidence. religion is based on faith alone and no evidence. the two are completely separable and unrelated. putting them next to each other is nothing but a juxtaposition.

also, there is evidence supporting the theory of the big bang. similar evidence does not exist for there being a god. saying that there is evidence for a big bang does not mean that some creator did not put things in place for an evolving universe based on the big bang. science only says things that are based in this universe and doesnt even concenr itself with the ethereal.

 

Wow have you people gone waaaay of the subject...