Have we truly escaped???

[wethirst]

There has always been a staunch battle over creationism vs. evolution. It goes without saying. The battle has always seemed to run deeper. Does God exist or not?

Let us assume for a moment that everything dictated by modern secularist scientists today is true. That evolution is completely true, that life is based upon biological processes of micro and macro evolution. Is that truly evidence that there is no God???

It is often proposed to people of theistic faith, 'why do you believe in God? What evidence do you have?' But perhaps those of atheistic beliefs could be asked the same question. 'What evidence is there to support that there is not?' What sort of evidence are we looking for? Scientific? Psychological? How do we know that science can tell us one way or another?

 

[jiii]

It's somewhat funny that the problem seems to be based upon the same misunderstanding on both sides of the coin.

Creationists insist that God is a physical personality of sorts...that he is a literal, intentional, physical entity. On the other hand, the Evolutionists that denounce God by saying, 'There is no proof' are reinforcing the belief that he WOULD be an entity in the physical world. The whole question of 'Is there a God?' has been reduced to the much less important question," Is there a dog we can distinguish from everything else with our eyes?'.

Both sides seem very hung up on God's physical representation. How classic?

 

[flowperson]

It's somewhat funny that the problem seems to be based upon the same misunderstanding on both sides of the coin.

Creationists insist that God is a physical personality of sorts...that he is a literal, intentional, physical entity. On the other hand, the Evolutionists that denounce God by saying, 'There is no proof' are reinforcing the belief that he WOULD be an entity in the physical world. The whole question of 'Is there a God?' has been reduced to the much less important question," Is there a dog we can distinguish from everything else with our eyes?'.

Both sides seem very hung up on God's physical representation. How classic?

Yep, and here we all are in the "post modern" era. WHY THEN are we still thinking in classical ways ?

flow....

 

[wethirst]

Interesting points. What I think it comes down to is this... Science is not a decent argument for the non-existence of God-as we so thought. Not even a physical, literal God. Who's to say he didn't create through evolution?

 

[Jaiket]

That evolution is completely true, that life is based upon biological processes of micro and macro evolution. Is that truly evidence that there is no God???

No. It is evidence that you can get humans and other wonderful varieties of life without gods. Whatever they are.

'What evidence is there to support that there is not?'

This is asked (tiringly) often. It strikes me as something expected only by a more juvenile theist.

What sort of evidence are we looking for? Scientific? Psychological? How do we know that science can tell us one way or another?

We're not really looking for evidence to be honest. God/Gods/whatever are normally said to be transcendant of our reality and so without the range of our senses.

If I were to ask a theist to offer me evidence that supports the hypothesis that a certain god exists I would require the kind of evidence that doesn't require belief first.

 

[Jaiket]

On the other hand, the Evolutionists that denounce God by saying, 'There is no proof' are reinforcing the belief that he WOULD be an entity in the physical world.

I suppose you're substantially correct, we only tend to disbelieve what we can cognitively grasp.

 

[Thomas]

Yep, and here we all are in the "post modern" era. WHY THEN are we still thinking in classical ways ?

Hey, Flow! Easy on the classicists! Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and the boys must be spinning in their graves when they listen in on some of the arguments of the creationists ... and the post-modernists, too!

A bit more philosophical rigour in both camps wouldn't go far amiss.

Thomas

 

[flowperson]

Thomas:

Please don't get your underthings all in a knot.

I was commenting upon the methodology of much of the commentary and thought that is still used today, mainly because the academy mostly still teaches by/through such methods. I was most certainly not casting aspersions upon some of the great thinkers of the past. It's just that I believe that the future requires more flexibility, complexity, and creativity in thought by us all, since that seems to be reflective what the world of today and the future is/will be.

flow....

 

[wethirst]

No. It is evidence that you can get humans and other wonderful varieties of life without gods. Whatever they are.

This is asked (tiringly) often. It strikes me as something expected only by a more juvenile theist.

We're not really looking for evidence to be honest. God/Gods/whatever are normally said to be transcendant of our reality and so without the range of our senses.

If I were to ask a theist to offer me evidence that supports the hypothesis that a certain god exists I would require the kind of evidence that doesn't require belief first.

First off, I was not attempting to make a complete argument towards any particular view. Simply raising questions.

You claim that macroevolution proves that there was no creator... but I'm wondering-would the existence of a higher power be necessarily obvious scientifically? I do not agree with the fundamentalist theistic view that all creatures literally appeared out of nowhere on a particular day 10,000 years ago. However, I can't see how any scientific theory can denounce the existence of a higher power. If we have a scientific explanation for speciation, who cares? Does that take a God out of the picture? I don't believe so. It is theologically possible in my view (in fact likely), that life developed on earth as a part of a plan of a God through the mode of evolution. Just because we have an understanding of the way life works, doesn't mean we know what caused it in the first place. The same goes for the Big Bang, how is it proof that there is no God?

Please forgive my scattered and inconclusive thoughts-I still have much to learn and study.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

You claim that macroevolution proves that there was no creator...

Who is claiming that?

 

[Jaiket]

You claim that macroevolution proves that there was no creator...

I don't claim this. I claim that evolution shows how we can get humans without deities. The same way germ theory shows how we can get disease without evil spirits. It does not rule out the existence of spirits or even perhaps rule out the partcipation in some unseen way of spirits in making people ill - it simply explains the disease without spirits. There is nothing that warrants the involvment of gods in explaning the appearance of humans.

but I'm wondering-would the existence of a higher power be necessarily obvious scientifically?

According to most if not all theists God is beyond our sensible abilities, and therefore outwith the range of science. Only a truly gifted mind can percieve the supernatural/transcendant reality that harbours all powerful beings, we're told.

'Higher power' is a vague expression though. What exactly constitutes a higher power in your opinion? Would an entity that functions within our empirical reality though can perform feats of wonder like miracles be a higher power?

However, I can't see how any scientific theory can denounce the existence of a higher power. If we have a scientific explanation for speciation, who cares? Does that take a God out of the picture? I don't believe so.

And I believe that you are correct in your belief. No scientific theory can, or even claims to be able to rule out gods. There are always gaps in our knowledge and the words ''God did it'' will probably fill those gaps for the forseeable future.

It is theologically possible in my view (in fact likely), that life developed on earth as a part of a plan of a God through the mode of evolution. Just because we have an understanding of the way life works, doesn't mean we know what caused it in the first place.

It is also possible that a fairy queen from a bizarre fantasy reality decided it would be fun to populate our universe with life and in doing so faked all the evidence for evolution on Earth as a sly joke on humanity. There is no reason to believe that this is true, though it is logically as plausible as deities etc. Once we start invoking supernatural agents we create a reality where everything is equally plausible.

The same goes for the Big Bang, how is it proof that there is no God?

It isn't.

Please forgive my scattered and inconclusive thoughts-I still have much to learn and study.

I'm happy to share what I know, which is little, and my opinions, which are extensive.

 

[wethirst]

Sorry that I have been absent from this thread for so long. You say that you have yet to be given proof that there is a God. I can give you philosophical arguments, I can give 'proof', but the first question; what would convince you? Is it more than lack of intellectual evidence, is there some reason you don't want God to exist? Those are valid reasons to deny his existence, I understand, but all of us should question our reasons for everything I think.
So here's the question (for anyone) what would prove it to you?

 

[wethirst]

I don't claim this. I claim that evolution shows how we can get humans without deities. The same way germ theory shows how we can get disease without evil spirits. It does not rule out the existence of spirits or even perhaps rule out the partcipation in some unseen way of spirits in making people ill - it simply explains the disease without spirits. There is nothing that warrants the involvment of gods in explaning the appearance of humans.

According to most if not all theists God is beyond our sensible abilities, and therefore outwith the range of science. Only a truly gifted mind can percieve the supernatural/transcendant reality that harbours all powerful beings, we're told.

'Higher power' is a vague expression though. What exactly constitutes a higher power in your opinion? Would an entity that functions within our empirical reality though can perform feats of wonder like miracles be a higher power?

And I believe that you are correct in your belief. No scientific theory can, or even claims to be able to rule out gods. There are always gaps in our knowledge and the words ''God did it'' will probably fill those gaps for the forseeable future.

It is also possible that a fairy queen from a bizarre fantasy reality decided it would be fun to populate our universe with life and in doing so faked all the evidence for evolution on Earth as a sly joke on humanity. There is no reason to believe that this is true, though it is logically as plausible as deities etc. Once we start invoking supernatural agents we create a reality where everything is equally plausible.

It isn't.

I'm happy to share what I know, which is little, and my opinions, which are extensive.

btw, thank you for what you have said. It simply seems to me that too many people assume that the physical should explain the non-existence of the metaphysical. You have a very fair, honest approach to the subject, so I stand corrected on my over-generalization (but let me take this a different direction, see post above)

 

[elme]

......
So here's the question (for anyone) what would prove it to you?

WELL, firstly i have to say: I do not see how, if scientists .... or whomever .... make use of deduction and simple logic .... HOW how how do you miss the fact that there's a Higher Power????
Where in the hell did that very first ""freak" organism (orgasm!) come from?

OK. a REALISATION ..... and truly, i mean an AWAKENess .... when you look at anything (ANYTHING), and try and imagine all the forces and natural laws that allows it to be as it is. mindboggling

JA, that sorta does it for me ....

 

[jiii]

WELL, firstly i have to say: I do not see how, if scientists .... or whomever .... make use of deduction and simple logic .... HOW how how do you miss the fact that there's a Higher Power????
Where in the hell did that very first ""freak" organism (orgasm!) come from?

Well, we ought to take care not to jump to conclusions, though. Just because we don't know some things, such as the mystery of biogenesis, doesn't necessarily prove that there is a 'higher power'. Unless, that is, we are to attribute all things unknown to a higher power simply because they are unknown.

OK. a REALISATION ..... and truly, i mean an AWAKENess .... when you look at anything (ANYTHING), and try and imagine all the forces and natural laws that allows it to be as it is. mindboggling

With all due respect, many people that admit to being wonderfully mind-boggled by the bottomless complexity of this Universe don't see any reason why this sense of wonder should directly translate into the belief in a higher power. Perhaps many of them would offer this as a kind of proof of the relevancy of spirituality, but belief in a 'higher power' need not be the inevitable conclusion of our sense of wonder.

Of course, it may very well be so for you. In fact, it may legitimately be so. Though, strictly speaking, the conclusion that there is a higher power does not necessarily follow from our awe at this unexplainable existence.

-jiii

 

[Jaiket]

So here's the question (for anyone) what would prove it to you?

I suppose that depends on what I'm expected to believe. God is so vague a word that it is useless at times.

Say a god wanted to convince me it created the universe, it could pop in and show me how it did so. I'd be happy to accept the appearence of new star systems relatively nearby as good evidence. Further acts of creation in a tested environment would go a long way with me.