Evolution vs. Creationism

[Duty]

No Duty, that wouldn't be evidence of God. That would be evidence of scientific phenomenon. Even if it's not something that is understood, no one would question that it was a scientific phenomenon that was being witnessed.

When people say they want evidence of God, what they are usually looking for is for God to "break" one or more of the rules of physics that God established. Not only that, but to break it consistently so that all can see it. God doesn't break his rules. He uses scientific phenomenon that we don't understand fully. Even if God did decide to "break" a rule, would he truly be breaking the rule? Or just using it in a way that we don't understand? We've done a good job as a species of describing how things work, but we don't know it all. But let's say God did decide to break a rule. And let's say people notice it. We wouldn't conclude that God exists - we'd conclude that there is a higher rule or property that we weren't aware of. This is why I asked for a specific hypothetic example of something that could constitute proof of God.

Except that the claims made by most religions are of supernatural (which by definition means that it is beyond the realm of the natural) entities that have performed miraculous deeds such as resurrection and parting seawater by the wave of their hand.

But I can ignore that for a moment and more directly answer your objection. Logically God can either have the power to break physical laws or he can not break these rules.

If God can not break the laws of physics, then he is bound to follow them. In this case, he is not omnipotent by any interesting definition of the word. Further, if he only performs powers that are within the bounds of physical laws, then humans can one day gain those powers, as we have the capability to understand physics...which makes our potential equal to (possibly greater than) God's in this case.

Now, if you're only saying God CAN do these things, but chooses not to, then my original argument still stands: God is choosing to not reveal himself in any sort of obvious way, and so it would be ill-founded of him to expect people to believe in his existence, and if you believe he sends you to hell for not believing, then I call that God immoral and unjust for committing people to such harsh punishment while giving them no obvious indication of his existence.


So if God is only capable of working within the laws of physics, then you have to bite the bullet that humans have potential equal to or greater than his current power: our knowledge of physics can one day match or exceed where he is. Further, God would not be omnipotent by classic definitions of the word. If God can break the laws of physics but just chooses not to, then my original argument stands: God chooses not to reveal himself in an obvious way, and so can not expect honest humans to acknowledge his existence without proper evidence.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Then make a legitimate argument and not a fallacious one. My only purpose was to point out that your argument was a fallacy.

You only choose to see what you want to see, so you make arguments fallacious. It wasn't fallacious at all, actually.

I've already realized how short-sighted and unable to see the big picture you are, though, so don't worry, I won't hold it against you

 

[Duty]

You only choose to see what you want to see, so you make arguments fallacious. It wasn't fallacious at all, actually.

I've already realized how short-sighted and unable to see the big picture you are, though, so don't worry, I won't hold it against you

So recognizing an argument as fallacious and unconvincing = short-sighted? Pour more irony on my head please!

I don't make these arguments fallacious. They're fallacious because they're illogical and have little to do with what is being questioned. They're put against a standard of reason developed by philosophy over 1000s of years, which has truly become fruitful over the last 100 years. They're called informal fallacies, and the specific one you are using here is special pleading. If I say, "There is not enough evidence for God's existence and so therefore belief that he exists is improper," countering with, "Only people that already believe can see the evidence, you just don't see it," is spurious and fallacious.

It's like if you asked your parents why we can't eat with elbows on the table and they answered with "You're just too young to understand, but don't do it anyways," then they aren't giving you an answer, they're just avoiding the question in the first place. This is what (I think anyways, it's hard to tell what you're actually saying) you are basically doing. You're telling me that I have to believe in order for your evidence, to prove belief is proper, is relevant.


So again, drench me in more talk of "short-sightedness," and "not seeing the big picture." You do such a great job of making your side of the debate convincing by telling me you're elite enough to understand and I'm not.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

The discussion concerning any supranatural existence, be it God or Gods/Goddesses, always comes down to faith. Faith cannot be empirically proven. It is personal and emotional.

Any Science works on general proven theories of observable natural phenomena and there can never be a general proven theory of any supranatural existence because, by definition, it differs from the natural.

A parallel could be drawn from Quantum Mechanics in that certain particles, such as W and Z bosons, were mathematically and theoretically possible and probable, but they were not actually proven to exist until a particle accelerator powerful enough was constructed in 1983. However, we only know them by their interactions with other particles. We cannot 'see' them, even with the most powerful means possible.
In other words, we know them by their interactions, their presence, not by their actual physical existence.

This is how 'signs' are in the realms of the supranatural. By faith, which can be likened to the theoretical existence of a supranatural entity, one may look for those interactions which indicate the presence of this supranatural entity. One must believe, have faith in, this entity's existence in order to see its 'signs'; just as a scientist must believe in Quantum Mechanics in order to 'see' the existence of these particles by their interactions with known particles, and there are still those in the scientific communities which do not accept Quantum Mechanics as being possible.

So, any discussion of the existence of a supranatural entity or entities will always dead-end at the question of faith and it is useless arguing about this. Faith is not empirical and will never be empirical.

Faith occurs internally and personally.
Science occurs externally and impersonally.

"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." - Rudyard Kipling 1892

 

[Shai Gar]

Science occurs internally too. There's Biology for a start.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Science occurs internally too. There's Biology for a start.

And neurochemistry.

Serotonin FTW!

 

[Duty]

The discussion concerning any supranatural existence, be it God or Gods/Goddesses, always comes down to faith. Faith cannot be empirically proven. It is personal and emotional.

Any Science works on general proven theories of observable natural phenomena and there can never be a general proven theory of any supranatural existence because, by definition, it differs from the natural.

Correct, and the true difference is the religion/supernatural explanations have done jack to explain how things actually are, let alone come up with anything useful for the advancement of mankind. Both areas have been misused, sure, and that's not what I'm addressing, I'm stating that religion has done nothing to advance mankind beyond offering emotional comfort that God will come and fix the world some day or that the next life is better then this one...which in a science called psychology people are working to correct the discomforts people have anyways.

Supernatural explanations of the world are nice fantasies, but that's it. I know I sound bitter or cynical or mean when I say it this way, but they are fantasies and nice stories, nothing more. There is nothing useful that comes out of explaining things in an incomprehensible "supernatural" way beyond movies and fantasy books (which are pretty sweet, but cmon...no one is trying to get LotR taught in schools as fact).

A parallel could be drawn from Quantum Mechanics in that certain particles, such as W and Z bosons, were mathematically and theoretically possible and probable, but they were not actually proven to exist until a particle accelerator powerful enough was constructed in 1983. However, we only know them by their interactions with other particles. We cannot 'see' them, even with the most powerful means possible.
In other words, we know them by their interactions, their presence, not by their actual physical existence.

This is how 'signs' are in the realms of the supranatural. By faith, which can be likened to the theoretical existence of a supranatural entity, one may look for those interactions which indicate the presence of this supranatural entity. One must believe, have faith in, this entity's existence in order to see its 'signs'; just as a scientist must believe in Quantum Mechanics in order to 'see' the existence of these particles by their interactions with known particles, and there are still those in the scientific communities which do not accept Quantum Mechanics as being possible.

There are 3 HUGE differences here, and that is that things seen on "faith" have no evidence in the first place to suppose their existence, are completely untestable (where as the existence of bosons are not...how do you test if God exists?), and that supernatural explanations for as-of-yet scientifically unexplained phenomena in the world universally go against rules of reason: the most common being Okham's Razor and anecdotal evidence.

So, any discussion of the existence of a supranatural entity or entities will always dead-end at the question of faith and it is useless arguing about this. Faith is not empirical and will never be empirical.

Except that faith is near useless for explaining how things actually are and for predicting how they will likely be.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Science occurs internally too. There's Biology for a start.

And neurochemistry.

Serotonin FTW!

I was referring to internally as a psychological occurence, not biologically.
Faith cannot be determined in any physical sense. The affects of faith can. Chemical changes within one's body can occur as a result of the emotional degree of one's faith, though.

 

[Duty]

I was referring to internally as a psychological occurence, not biologically.
Faith cannot be determined in any physical sense. The affects of faith can. Chemical changes within one's body can occur as a result of the emotional degree of one's faith, though.

Changes which speak nothing of the truth of what that person has faith in. Schizophrenics hear voices that have quite a profound effect on their behavior, but those voices aren't real.

 

[just me]

Changes which speak nothing of the truth of what that person has faith in. Schizophrenics hear voices that have quite a profound effect on their behavior, but those voices aren't real.

Samuel.
How is it said that faith cometh by hearing?

 

[Duty]

Samuel.
How is it said that faith cometh by hearing?

Explain.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Correct, and the true difference is the religion/supernatural explanations have done jack to explain how things actually are, let alone come up with anything useful for the advancement of mankind. Both areas have been misused, sure, and that's not what I'm addressing, I'm stating that religion has done nothing to advance mankind beyond offering emotional comfort that God will come and fix the world some day or that the next life is better then this one...which in a science called psychology people are working to correct the discomforts people have anyways.

Religions such as Buddhism have done much to advance Humanity. Not every religion has a belief in a supranatural entity. Many principles within psychology were within religions such as Buddhism and Jainism long before psychology came to be.

Supernatural explanations of the world are nice fantasies, but that's it. I know I sound bitter or cynical or mean when I say it this way, but they are fantasies and nice stories, nothing more. There is nothing useful that comes out of explaining things in an incomprehensible "supernatural" way beyond movies and fantasy books (which are pretty sweet, but cmon...no one is trying to get LotR taught in schools as fact).

LoTR is not a creation story. The creation stories cannot be discounted merely because they do not fit within the parameters of empirical science. No one knows what the animating factor is which gives life, so the 'theories' of religions can be given a level of probability, but not discounted.

There are 3 HUGE differences here, and that is that things seen on "faith" have no evidence in the first place to suppose their existence, are completely untestable (where as the existence of bosons are not...how do you test if God exists?), and that supernatural explanations for as-of-yet scientifically unexplained phenomena in the world universally go against rules of reason: the most common being Okham's Razor and anecdotal evidence.

Does Love exist? There is no empirical evidence that it does. It cannot be tested or quantified. It definitely goes against the rule of reason. Yet, almost anyone you ask will say that Love exists.

Faith is an apect of Love. In most cases, it is considered the highest, most complete form of Love.
Science will say that love is an emotion. Do emotions exist? Then, if faith is the highest expression of love, then it is the highest, most complete expression of an emotion. Hence, it must exist.

One cannot 'see' chakras or the meridian lines within the human body, but medicinal practice in many areas of the Far East is founded on these 'assumptions' and have worked for hundreds of years. There are no empirical tests which can prove their existence.

Except that faith is near useless for explaining how things actually are and for predicting how they will likely be.

In some cases, you are correct. I do not adhere to many of the creation stories in any religion, but science cannot say how Existence began or even if it did begin. Existence may have never had a beginning and may never end. No one knows.

I am not an adherent to any religious or secular philosophy, but I do respect their right to believe in what they wish, be it a supranatural being, fairies and spirits, or the tangible observations of science. Whether or not there is an existence beyond the natural or empirical phenomena we as Humans encounter will always be debated. Whether or not Existence was created or not, or whether it merely has been forever cannot be proven.

What proponents of a scientific and empirical view seem to forget is that if the 'Big Bang' theory is correct and everything began from this 'singularity', how did this singularity come into being in the first place?
For that matter, why is there anything instead of nothing?
A 'theory' posed by a religious view is just as relevant as a 'theory' posed by a scientific empirical view.

I have witnessed many ocurences over my lifetime which I could neither explain nor deny, and some of these involved people with immense depth of faith, but I would not judge them merely on my own personal experiences or point of view.
My only objection is to the outright denial of any viewpoint merely because it contradicts one's own viewpoint, whether this is based on faith or observable empirical sensory input.

As I said, the discussion between faith and empirical science will always exist because, though there are many with faith who will not deny the proofs of science (...and those who will), there are those of science who will outright dismiss the experience of faith in a supranatural entity because they cannot prove its existence to themselves.

 

[Duty]

Religions such as Buddhism have done much to advance Humanity. Not every religion has a belief in a supranatural entity. Many principles within psychology were within religions such as Buddhism and Jainism long before psychology came to be.

I'm not entirely familiar with Jainism, but Buddhism I feel confident in commenting on.

Yes, I'll give Buddhism much credit, because its basic practices like meditation, the 4 Noble Truths, and (idk if it has a name, but I distinguish it) the basic principle of Buddhism (which, to me, is that the extinguishing of desire leads to psychological peace...one can never be disappointed if one does not desire something and not get it, or gets something one desires to avoid) all have roots in some kind of reasoning or have effects that actually do some good. However, things like karma, rebirths, and whatnot are just more nonsense. There is a lot of psychological curiousities that Buddhism has touched on, and that is very worthy of investigation.

I guess when I use the word "religion" I refer mostly to Christianity, but also the load of supernatural nonsense that encompasses other similar faiths that focus mostly on supernatural events and entities, such as Islam, Ba'hai, Judaism, Shinto, Neo-Pagan/New Age, and other such faiths.

If one is interested in the psychological effects of ancient practices, then study those effects, what makes them work/not work, if they work in the first place, and the like. You're contributing and being helpful then. But spreading stories about supernatural entities is a completely different thing...

Does Love exist? There is no empirical evidence that it does. It cannot be tested or quantified. It definitely goes against the rule of reason. Yet, almost anyone you ask will say that Love exists.

Why do people make this argument? Seriously...love is explained very simply through psychology: it's a physiological and/or psychological response to certain stimuli. It's probably measurable (I'm not familiar enough with the field to say for sure, but I bet if we researched it...) in the form of brainwaves, how the heart responds, hormones, or the like. Why do we need to add supernatural explanations to such a phenomena? What evidence is there for such a thing?

Faith is an apect of Love. In most cases, it is considered the highest, most complete form of Love.
Science will say that love is an emotion. Do emotions exist? Then, if faith is the highest expression of love, then it is the highest, most complete expression of an emotion. Hence, it must exist.

Sure, faith is something that exists. People feel faith all the time. It doesn't make what they have faith about any more or less true though.

One cannot 'see' chakras or the meridian lines within the human body, but medicinal practice in many areas of the Far East is founded on these 'assumptions' and have worked for hundreds of years. There are no empirical tests which can prove their existence.

Perhaps some of these practices work because of the medicines they give the patients, or the environment they create, etc. The practice can work but that doesn't mean the nonsensical supernatural explanation for WHY it works is correct.

In some cases, you are correct. I do not adhere to many of the creation stories in any religion, but science cannot say how Existence began or even if it did begin. Existence may have never had a beginning and may never end. No one knows.

Sure, we may never know, or even be capable of knowing, how "existence" started. So why, again, do we need some supernatural explanation for it? It's most accurate, honest, and truthful to just say, "I don't know how it all started," and then if you're curious enough, to test the theories about it that you are able to test.

I am not an adherent to any religious or secular philosophy, but I do respect their right to believe in what they wish, be it a supranatural being, fairies and spirits, or the tangible observations of science. Whether or not there is an existence beyond the natural or empirical phenomena we as Humans encounter will always be debated. Whether or not Existence was created or not, or whether it merely has been forever cannot be proven.

Sure, they have a right to believe in it, but that doesn't make it right that they do. It doesn't make them right in their belief being truth. And it certainly doesn't give them the right to try and inject it into the education of others, nor make others observe their archaic traditions/morality.

What proponents of a scientific and empirical view seem to forget is that if the 'Big Bang' theory is correct and everything began from this 'singularity', how did this singularity come into being in the first place?
For that matter, why is there anything instead of nothing?

What proponents of a supernatural or religious view seem to forget is that if the 'God' theory is correct and everything began from this 'intelligent creation', how did this creator come into being in the first place?

Why I don't see as relevant here, only what is.

A 'theory' posed by a religious view is just as relevant as a 'theory' posed by a scientific empirical view.

No, it's really not. A good theory is one that has facts and evidence to support it. Religion does not have that, science does.

 

[Milon]

Except that the claims made by most religions are of supernatural (which by definition means that it is beyond the realm of the natural) entities that have performed miraculous deeds such as resurrection and parting seawater by the wave of their hand.

But I can ignore that for a moment and more directly answer your objection. Logically God can either have the power to break physical laws or he can not break these rules.

If God can not break the laws of physics, then he is bound to follow them. In this case, he is not omnipotent by any interesting definition of the word. Further, if he only performs powers that are within the bounds of physical laws, then humans can one day gain those powers, as we have the capability to understand physics...which makes our potential equal to (possibly greater than) God's in this case.

Now, if you're only saying God CAN do these things, but chooses not to, then my original argument still stands: God is choosing to not reveal himself in any sort of obvious way, and so it would be ill-founded of him to expect people to believe in his existence, and if you believe he sends you to hell for not believing, then I call that God immoral and unjust for committing people to such harsh punishment while giving them no obvious indication of his existence.


So if God is only capable of working within the laws of physics, then you have to bite the bullet that humans have potential equal to or greater than his current power: our knowledge of physics can one day match or exceed where he is. Further, God would not be omnipotent by classic definitions of the word. If God can break the laws of physics but just chooses not to, then my original argument stands: God chooses not to reveal himself in an obvious way, and so can not expect honest humans to acknowledge his existence without proper evidence.

That is valid reasoning. However I would still like a specific example of something which you would consider to be evidence for the existence of God. Either there is something that would be evidence for God's existence or else there is nothing that could be evidence for God's existence. In the former case I would like you to provide an example so I can better understand your perspective. In the latter case it would be unfair for you to ask to be provided with such evidence.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

So recognizing an argument as fallacious and unconvincing = short-sighted? Pour more irony on my head please!

I don't make these arguments fallacious. They're fallacious because they're illogical and have little to do with what is being questioned. They're put against a standard of reason developed by philosophy over 1000s of years, which has truly become fruitful over the last 100 years. They're called informal fallacies, and the specific one you are using here is special pleading. If I say, "There is not enough evidence for God's existence and so therefore belief that he exists is improper," countering with, "Only people that already believe can see the evidence, you just don't see it," is spurious and fallacious.

It's like if you asked your parents why we can't eat with elbows on the table and they answered with "You're just too young to understand, but don't do it anyways," then they aren't giving you an answer, they're just avoiding the question in the first place. This is what (I think anyways, it's hard to tell what you're actually saying) you are basically doing. You're telling me that I have to believe in order for your evidence, to prove belief is proper, is relevant.


So again, drench me in more talk of "short-sightedness," and "not seeing the big picture." You do such a great job of making your side of the debate convincing by telling me you're elite enough to understand and I'm not.

I never once said you couldn't understand it. I never once said you had to believe.

But I am saying you have to be respectful of another's viewpoint and attempt to see things from different angles. Life isn't in shades of black and white, religion and science, right or wrong.

I'm not arguing with you about this anymore. I refuse to debate with anyone if I do not feel they respect me. For quite a while, the only vibes I've gotten from you are extremely repressing. I'm not cool with that, and I don't feel as if you're considering what I'm saying in an unbiased fashion.


I'm not posting in this thread to pick fights with you. If you feel the need to attack me -- not debate or discuss or consider, but openly attack -- then I'm not sure you understand my intentions. I enjoy discussion, and I enjoy the dynamics of topics such as these, but I absolutely detest hostile debate.

 

[anahata]

Any Science works on general proven theories of observable natural phenomena and there can never be a general proven theory of any supranatural existence because, by definition, it differs from the natural.

Quite.

The functioning of a mobile phone would once have been a supernatural phenomenon. Intuitively someone thought about a mysterious set of invisible frequencies which could be used in conjunction with a physical device. Then these waves of information would be bounced off satalites (which are in outer space btw) and be able to communicate with someone the other side of the earth (which isn't flat btw). :O Shock!!! Thats impossible!! Well actually it's not, but without experience that’s supernatural.

So when science manages to prove the existance of possiblities it is no longer supernatural. Suddenly it’s obviously possible, previously only doable as ‘an act of god’. Who manifested it? Well… us! At that point the next generation looks down at the last for not comprehending (being primitive and all that).

Of course we should question things. BUT the existance of a god is not something to be proved as it is always going to be a mystery... because there will always be things we will not understand because of relativity, separateness and infinity.
Each time something is PROVED it becomes obvious and second nature and therefore not part of this 'mystical NONSCIENCE' anymore and therefore "not an act of god".
I'll admit, the concept of god had me laughing for a number of years because I had listened to the preconceived ideas of what that entity was... LIMITED!

The mistake is believing that possibilities are limited.

Just because something is not visible/understood that doesn’t mean it does not exist.


EXAMPLE TIME…

Take a virus.
Does the virus have consciousness? Well, it’s plays out coded functions whatever the case.
Science has labelled it, defined it. You can tell it’s existence by it’s effects.

Then an antibody is developed. (does the virus know what created the antivirus? Maybe/ most likely not but it was not a supernatural force which caused that to happen as you know. Are we an external force? No, the the virus was within us, as was the ‘force’… our conscious effort to act upon it's function.
If the full course of antibiotic is not taken properly (the virus becomes stronger), the virus detects the code trying to destroy it and it adapts, fighting for survival, it mutates. That is evolution, that is creation.

That change was not created by an external force, the rules were not broken BUT they were bent.

There was creation of a new strain of virus which was previously not known (it didn’t exist) but now, a new manifested entity can be experienced.

The virus fought for its survival, the responsibility for it’s existence was it’s own.

We are within the force and the force is within us. It’s all about give and take in a battle for survival to be a better force of creation in redefining who and what we are.


A-men

 

[earthtocarrie]

God is the personification of cause.

 

[Satya]

God is the personification of cause.

I would say he is the personification of effect because he is argued to be the final purpose via the teleological philosophies inherent in most theology.

Causality seems more to be the personification of nature.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I would say he is the personification of effect because he is argued to be the final purpose via the teleological philosophies inherent in most theology.

Causality seems more to be the personification of nature.

Who argues that God is the final purpose? If that were the case, why God bother creating anything besides himself? No, union with God is argued to be the final purpose. Apparently He likes company.

God is the personification of cause, and the universe is commonly seen as the effect.

 

[Satya]

Who argues that God is the final purpose? If that were the case, why God bother creating anything besides himself? No, union with God is argued to be the final purpose. Apparently He likes company.

According to much theology, God created life to worship and love him. So all of creation must see serving him as the final purpose.