Did God create the universe?

DaveC426913 said:
That's a heck of a leap - without giving us a heads up - if he is.
Click to expand...
It would be after reading this:
davewhite04 said:
I also think it is impossible, genetically to believe in God/gods, the God gene hypothesis for some people. If God/creator gods exist, blame them!
Click to expand...
So, he may not be...
Hence my confusion of where DaveW is coming from, after his earlier post about some of us are born with a God gene, and now his latest post about Faith and genetics.
davewhite04 said:
it’s a hypothetical idea, which is what I said. I happen to believe that lack of faith is genetic, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Remember JR usually gets it in the neck for asking simple questions of someone for clarification of a point.
So, I’m being nice.
 
Last edited:
foghorn said:
Are you are using genes and genetic NOT in the biological sense, but in the sense of open to absorbing the faith culture you're born into, is that right?
Click to expand...
No. Biology is what I'm talking about. Not my area of expertise, but when I find a distinct subject I want to learn from, it doesn't matter if it's mythology or science, I look into it.
 
foghorn said:
It would be after reading this:

So, he may not be...
Hence my confusion of where DaveW is coming from, after his earlier post about some of us are born with a God gene, and now his latest post about Faith and genetics.


Remember JR usually gets it in the neck for asking simple questions of someone for clarification of a point.
So, I’m being nice.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you be nice?
 
I'm not trying to catch you out, but I try to find where you're coming from. Some things that seem to contradict other things you have said.

davewhite04 said:
No. Biology is what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
So, if it's in the biological sense in which you are takling about genes, and that you haven't changed your view about some people being born with a god gene... Then why do you say "I also think it is impossible, genetically to believe in God/gods,"? My bold below
davewhite04 said:
I also think it is impossible, genetically to believe in God/gods, the God gene hypothesis for some people.
Click to expand...

Remember you confirmed you haven't changed you mind about your clearly expressed opinion here:
davewhite04 said:
Well, some of us were born with the God gene, and some not. People who were not cannot believe in God, it's not their choice it just is.
Click to expand...

And again with the genetic:
davewhite04 said:
I happen to believe that lack of faith is genetic, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
 
foghorn said:
I'm not trying to catch you out, but I try to find where you're coming from. Some things that seem to contradict other things you have said.


So, if it's in the biological sense in which you are takling about genes, and that you haven't changed your view about some people being born with a god gene... Then why do you say "I also think it is impossible, genetically to believe in God/gods,"? My bold below


Remember you confirmed you haven't changed you mind about your clearly expressed opinion here:


And again with the genetic:
Click to expand...
In Dave's defense I mentioned Dawkins originally. He said it is unlikely to a fixed locus, like something complex like sense of humour or intelligence belief will genes working in tandem plus a memetic content.
 
foghorn said:
I'm not trying to catch you out, but I try to find where you're coming from. Some things that seem to contradict other things you have said.


So, if it's in the biological sense in which you are takling about genes, and that you haven't changed your view about some people being born with a god gene... Then why do you say "I also think it is impossible, genetically to believe in God/gods,"? My bold below


Remember you confirmed you haven't changed you mind about your clearly expressed opinion here:


And again with the genetic:
Click to expand...

I'll sum it up. I did float along a different wavelength at points which could cause confusion.

We are all born with the God gene, like bipolar, or cancer we all could get them disorders/diseases, extremely unlikely but likely, especially if you have a family history. I don't know what you have to do to make yourself more prone to bipolar for example, or that your God gene is inactive, don't ask me how to activate it!

EDIT: There could well be a trigger that activates it, like stress is for bipolar and cancer.
 
Pinball1970 said:
In Dave's defense I mentioned Dawkins originally. He said it is unlikely to a fixed locus, like something complex like sense of humour or intelligence belief will genes working in tandem plus a memetic content.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can only find Dawkins saying something like it’s an innate thing that makes some people more open to grouping and looking out for others.
And the doctor, can’t think of his name now, who came up with the idea of the ‘God gene’, points out, it doesn’t mean there really is a god. It might be something like the group obeys the leader because it’s best for the group to work as one. A oneness.
And, I’m reading it not a gene.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Why?

My point was there isn't objective evidence of God - anymore than there is objective evidence of magic or pixie dust.

You are committing the Logical fallacy: argument by incredulity. "I don't understand it therefore Godidit."

Again, the argument "God did it" is no more or less valid than "Pixies did it" or "It's just magic."


Good. It is a big step to admit you don't know things. Therein lies your path away from the "Goddidit" fallacy.


The key is don't invent new things until there's a necessity for them. We know about amino acids, primordial soup, fatty emulsifying lipids forming cells, etc. We can make a connection there without resorting magical explanations, without resorting to "I don't understand it, therefore God". Don't be lazy. Science is in the details.
Click to expand...
Only just read this exchange. It seems to me Concordicus is making the usual creationist demand that science should have all the answers. Now.

It often seems to me creationists don't want to understand that because science is founded on methodological naturalism and observation, that will inevitably constrain how far its knowledge extends at any point in history. We don't have a model for abiogenesis yet. It's one of the most difficult problems in science. We do have a lot of promising avenues, hypotheses and building blocks and a lot of progress is being made, but it's a long road.

Because the creationist generally doesn't understand biochemistry or evolutionary biology and, crucially, wants science to fail, he will seize on the fact that there is no model so far to claim failure - and then insert his God of the Gaps.
 
exchemist said:
Because the creationist generally doesn't understand biochemistry or evolutionary biology and, crucially, wants science to fail, he will seize on the fact that there is no model so far to claim failure - and then insert his God of the Gaps.
Click to expand...

I think its because it makes more sense in their brain that the earth is under 6k years old, because that's when people wrote/chiselled about God/gods/super human aliens etc. There is mixed messages and ignorance. I don't touch origins now.
 
davewhite04 said:
I think its because it makes more sense in their brain that the earth is under 6k years old, because that's when people wrote/chiselled about God/gods/super human aliens etc. There is mixed messages and ignorance. I don't touch origins now.
Click to expand...
Oh yes we know why. It's because they have been taught a fundamentalist version of Christianity (or Islam) that has not adapted to the modern world. That is generally, though not always, due to them belonging to a denomination without much tradition of formal theology or official hierarchy of priests or ministers. Those denominations that do have this have generally realised the validity of the scientific approach to the world and don't try to challenge it.

But it's not always as crude as 6k i.e. Bishop Ussher's chronology. Those are Young Earth Creationists (YEC). There are also Old Earth Creationists (OEC) who at least don't argue with the cosmology of how the Earth was formed, but restrict their dispute with science to the origin of life. The "Intelligent Design" movement (now moribund) fell into that category. I've never been quite sure why the origin of life, uniquely, is such a big deal for them. I think it must be something to do with the idea of Man made in the image of God, possession of an immortal soul and the doctrine of the Fall.

The Fall is of course intrinsically bound up with the purpose of Christ's mission on Earth and his sacrifice on the cross, so I can quite see why that's important. What I don't follow is why they think the idea of the Fall is incompatible with life, including mankind, arising naturally as a consequence of the (God-given, if you like) laws of nature. Maybe one day, if we get a sufficiently thoughtful creationist on the forum, I might put that to them. I've tried before, but most of the creationists we get don't seem to be up to that kind of probing of the rationale for their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Oh yes we know why. It's because they have been taught a fundamentalist version of Christianity (or Islam) that has not adapted to the modern world. That is generally, though not always, due to belonging to a denomination without much tradition of formal theology or priesthood. Those denominations that do have this have generally realised the validity of the scientific approach to the world and don't try to challenge it.
Click to expand...

The Catholic church for example.
 
davewhite04 said:
The Catholic church for example.
Click to expand...
Ahem yes, that is one I have particular knowledge of. And that alone represents 50% of Christianity worldwide. But also the Episcopalians, the Anglicans (like my mother) Methodists (like my grandfather), the Presbyterians, at least those in Scotland, the Lutherans, and no doubt others. I'm not sure about the Eastern churches (Orthodox, Copts, Syriac etc). Islam seems split between modernisers and fundamentalists but I don't have much knowledge to go on. Likewise Judaism.

(P.S. I've added some more to post 355 - I was slow to do so as I was on a tedious phone call about my son's mobile phone contract and a mystery SIM card I got this morning.)
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Ahem yes, that is one I have particular knowledge of. And that alone represents 50% of Christianity worldwide. But also the Episcopalians, the Anglicans (like my mother) Methodists (like my grandfather), the Presbyterians, at least those in Scotland, the Lutherans, and no doubt others. I'm not sure about the Eastern churches (Orthodox, Copts, Syriac etc). Islam seems split between modernisers and fundamentalists but I don't have much knowledge to go on. Likewise Judaism.
Click to expand...
I've noticed all the books based on monotheism copy off each other. Judaism is the alpha the new testament is the omega as far as I can see, imagine if your bible didn't have Jesus(no monotheism would exist except for the Jesus, well Judaism might of.? Jesus is the key, or the key to David. Sorry off topic, Judaism same as Christians really, some think it's literal, some talk about it(genesis) as if it's literal when they talk about Abram, but often call genesis mythological. From what I've gleaned off Islam, they don't talk about science and origins much, but everyone that has popped in the religion forum over the years, they were all fundies.
 
davewhite04 said:
I've noticed all the books based on monotheism copy off each other. Judaism is the alpha the new testament is the omega as far as I can see, imagine if your bible didn't have Jesus(no monotheism would exist except for the Jesus, well Judaism might of.? Jesus is the key, or the key to David. Sorry off topic, Judaism same as Christians really, some think it's literal, some talk about it(genesis) as if it's literal when they talk about Abram, but often call genesis mythological. From what I've gleaned off Islam, they don't talk about science and origins much, but everyone that has popped in the religion forum over the years, they were all fundies.
Click to expand...
Yes one would expect the Jews, having highly intellectual rabbis, to have a fairly sophisticated interpretation of their scripture. Islam seems to suffer from the same problem as fundie Christianity, viz. no formal theological structure or system of authority regarding the doctrine. So the various imams can make it up for themselves. A lot of them will duck the hard questions about science, as they are in any case peripheral to the religion, so they probably never work out an accommodation.
 
exchemist said:
Yes one would expect the Jews, having highly intellectual rabbis, to have a fairly sophisticated interpretation of their scripture. Islam seems to suffer from the same problem as fundie Christianity, viz. no formal theological structure or system of authority regarding the doctrine. So the various imams can make it up for themselves. A lot of them will duck the hard questions about science, as they are in any case peripheral to the religion, so they probably never work out an accommodation.
Click to expand...
I would like to add, there is also many highly intellectual Christians in all fields. Same with Islam. Jews aren't special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top