All my questions and thoughts in a single post

[LetsTalkAboutEvolution]

This will be a long post. I want to vent all my opinions - hope you dont mind.

Why do you believe in God when there is so much logical and physical evidence for Evolution, and the bible itself is such a contradictory and ridiculous book?

The bible states that god made Adam of the earth, and Eve from Adam.

If we do not take this literally, then what can we take literally? And if this is gods word, then wouldn't he add to it as needed? Wouldn't he, for instance, return jesus to the earth to update the bible?

A few more points:

1- Scientific Theory is all that there is in science - Gravity is a scientific theory. It is just very well supported - as is evolution.

Creationism is not scientific. Basically, it theorizes that some of the parts of animals (eyes, etc) are too complex to simply evolve. They must have being intended to fit together in this order as otherwise they would not function. HOWEVER - No parts have yet been found that correspond to this theory. The Evolution of the eye has been traced from sensitive skin to pitted skin to skin with a semi-liquid lense. The Flagella has been shown to have originated from a feeding organ. The Human ear is based on bones from a reptiles jaw - do you have more? I have not heard of them.

I would like to say that i do not hold anything personal against christians - I would just like to know why they believe in such an illogical thing. I do have personal issues with those who respond to this as simply 'Because god loves us' or similar. It strikes me that this people have absolute unshakable belief in God. They will not look at things logically or reasonably and instead choose to simply ignore what has been said and continue to do what they do. These people are too extremist IMO.

As for the metaphoric status of the bible, I would ask why god chooses not to present us with the full picture - and if this part of the bible is metaphorical, then why not other parts - such as the existence of jesus or hell or Christianity itself ?

 

[Supreme]

This will be a long post. I want to vent all my opinions - hope you dont mind.

Why do you believe in God when there is so much logical and physical evidence for Evolution, and the bible itself is such a contradictory and ridiculous book?

The bible states that god made Adam of the earth, and Eve from Adam.

If we do not take this literally, then what can we take literally? And if this is gods word, then wouldn't he add to it as needed? Wouldn't he, for instance, return jesus to the earth to update the bible?

A few more points:

1- Scientific Theory is all that there is in science - Gravity is a scientific theory. It is just very well supported - as is evolution.

Creationism is not scientific. Basically, it theorizes that some of the parts of animals (eyes, etc) are too complex to simply evolve. They must have being intended to fit together in this order as otherwise they would not function. HOWEVER - No parts have yet been found that correspond to this theory. The Evolution of the eye has been traced from sensitive skin to pitted skin to skin with a semi-liquid lense. The Flagella has been shown to have originated from a feeding organ. The Human ear is based on bones from a reptiles jaw - do you have more? I have not heard of them.

I would like to say that i do not hold anything personal against christians - I would just like to know why they believe in such an illogical thing. I do have personal issues with those who respond to this as simply 'Because god loves us' or similar. It strikes me that this people have absolute unshakable belief in God. They will not look at things logically or reasonably and instead choose to simply ignore what has been said and continue to do what they do. These people are too extremist IMO.

As for the metaphoric status of the bible, I would ask why god chooses not to present us with the full picture - and if this part of the bible is metaphorical, then why not other parts - such as the existence of jesus or hell or Christianity itself ?

The classic 'science vs religion' argument, made all the more amusing by an atheist who believes that his scientific knowledge is greater simply because he is not a theist.

1) Creationism is not supposed to be scientific. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.
2) In my opinion, believing that we're here by chance and have no purpose bar recreation is more illogical than believing in a higher power who's given us a purpose. I'm not a big fan of coincidences see, it's not very *ahem* scientific...
3) I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Anyone who doesn't believe in such a sound theory is in denial. Many Christians, namely Catholics, have accepted evolution from the word 'go'. It's just my own Protestant brethren in America who have the issue with it.
4) The Bible's ridiculous? Any examples? What do you find ridiculous, the commands not to kill one another, or the beautiful, intriguing stories that (whether you believe they happened or not) have impacted our literature in a way no other piece of work has ever done?
5) Please don't make the classic mistake in future of Christians being unscientific. Currently, I'm studying Biology and Chemistry at A2 level and hopefully, I will qualify at university to study medicine. Atheists believing that they're more scientifically knowledgable than theists is exactly the same as theists thinking they're morally superior to atheists- ie complete rubbish, without any scienitific grounds.

Wouldn't he, for instance, return jesus to the earth to update the bible?

See also: New Testament

 

[Van]

Hi LTAE, so lets talk.

You first premise is that if Evolution is true, then God is a fiction. How about a middle ground, our understanding of how God created everything is flawed?

Next you say the Bible is contradictory and ridiculous book. If you do not believe in God, then it would appear ridiculous, but if you believe in God, then it seems to make sense. And the Bible as few contradictions that are not driven by false doctrine.

Why not take it literally? Ground contains all the atoms of which we are comprised, and we contain the same kinds of atoms as other folks. So if God can create atoms, He can certainly group them into life forms.

Why has God not updated the Bible. I do not know. One could speculate that the Bible provides us with sufficient information for God's purpose, the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" reasoning.

I accept that science is well supported. But I also observe, that what science held as true 100 years ago is not longer considered valid. Darwinism is dead, neo-Darwinism has replaced it.

Your view seems consistent with folks who accept theistic evolution, the "what ever actually happened, God did it" view.

Is belief in creation illogical? In my very limited experience, things seem to go from order to disorder, so it seems "illogical" to me to say, given enough time, things go from disorder to order. Sounds like a religion called random creation.

The Book of Genesis occurred before the lifetime of the author, Moses. So it is an historical account based information provided by others. But for the most part, the rest of the Bible, also excluding Revelation of future events, deals with accounts observed by the author or by eyewitnesses. Hence Jesus is said to have risen from the dead, and this was witnessed by many people at the time. We know that many people believed these witnesses in the first century.

Genesis is a book of beginnings, it tells us a story of how everything began. God did it. But it does not tell us exactly how God did it, so folks down through history have speculated about how God did it and no doubt, some of those speculations were not accurate in every detail.

 

[fm107]

This will be a long post. I want to vent all my opinions - hope you dont mind.

We do not mind one little bit. In fact we would like to encourage you to ask questions as by asking questions allows you to learn more about the one and only living God whom sent his only begotten son to die for all of man’s sins and how believing in him grants you eternal life.

Why do you believe in God when there is so much logical and physical evidence for Evolution, and the bible itself is such a contradictory and ridiculous book?

Because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for creationism and for that you need a creator. I believe evolution to be very illogical. I believe common sense is enough to show any man that evolution is false. I was just thinking the other night there, isn’t it funny how the world spins? What made it spin in the first place? Isn’t it funny how all the planets rotate around the sun? What keeps them rotating the way they do? If evolution was real then why are there animals etc not half-way through evolution surely everything doesn’t start/stop evolving at the same time?

The bible might appear like a contradictory book and therefore you would go away thinking it is ridiculous. The bible isn’t like any other book you will ever come across. It definitely does not contradict itself although you may think it does. Feel free to state the parts whereby it is contradictory.

Why The bible states that god made Adam of the earth, and Eve from Adam.

If we do not take this literally, then what can we take literally? And if this is gods word, then wouldn't he add to it as needed? Wouldn't he, for instance, return jesus to the earth to update the bible?

We do take it literally in the circumstance you are referring to.

The bible does not need updating – in fact it’s so up to date we know what the future has in store for us.

A few more points:

1- Scientific Theory is all that there is in science - Gravity is a scientific theory. It is just very well supported - as is evolution.

Creationism is not scientific. Basically, it theorizes that some of the parts of animals (eyes, etc) are too complex to simply evolve. They must have being intended to fit together in this order as otherwise they would not function. HOWEVER - No parts have yet been found that correspond to this theory. The Evolution of the eye has been traced from sensitive skin to pitted skin to skin with a semi-liquid lense. The Flagella has been shown to have originated from a feeding organ. The Human ear is based on bones from a reptiles jaw - do you have more? I have not heard of them.

I would like to say that i do not hold anything personal against christians - I would just like to know why they believe in such an illogical thing. I do have personal issues with those who respond to this as simply 'Because god loves us' or similar. It strikes me that this people have absolute unshakable belief in God. They will not look at things logically or reasonably and instead choose to simply ignore what has been said and continue to do what they do. These people are too extremist IMO.

As for the metaphoric status of the bible, I would ask why god chooses not to present us with the full picture - and if this part of the bible is metaphorical, then why not other parts - such as the existence of jesus or hell or Christianity itself ?

The creation part of the bible is literal as is Jesus as is Hell as is Christianity.

Hope this helps give you a better understanding.

I'd like to ask you whether you believe in God and what do you think happens after you die?

 

[aiki]

Why do you believe in God when there is so much logical and physical evidence for Evolution, and the bible itself is such a contradictory and ridiculous book?

Because I don't believe there is "so much logical and physical evidence for Evolution" and because I don't think the Bible is a "contradictory and ridiculous book."

The bible states that god made Adam of the earth, and Eve from Adam.

Yes, it does.

If we do not take this literally, then what can we take literally? And if this is gods word, then wouldn't he add to it as needed? Wouldn't he, for instance, return jesus to the earth to update the bible?

What if He has communicated all that He needed to the first time He sent His Son to earth?

His Son will return, the Bible tells us, but it won't be for just an "update."

1- Scientific Theory is all that there is in science - Gravity is a scientific theory. It is just very well supported - as is evolution.

Scientific fact is interpreted by humans. These humans have prejudices, and biases, and assumptions born of these prejudices and biases that powerfully influence how they interpret what they uncover through the scientific method. These same scientists can also be dishonest, selfish, and petty. This also affects what and how science is presented to the non-scientist (and obviously not in a good way). To believe that science is delivered to us completely objectively and honestly all the time is incredibly naive and foolish.

Creationism is not scientific. Basically, it theorizes that some of the parts of animals (eyes, etc) are too complex to simply evolve. They must have being intended to fit together in this order as otherwise they would not function. HOWEVER - No parts have yet been found that correspond to this theory. The Evolution of the eye has been traced from sensitive skin to pitted skin to skin with a semi-liquid lense. The Flagella has been shown to have originated from a feeding organ. The Human ear is based on bones from a reptiles jaw - do you have more? I have not heard of them.

All of what you just explained is theory. Evolutionists assume what you have written above. How is this any better than what you condemn Creationists for doing?

I would like to say that i do not hold anything personal against christians - I would just like to know why they believe in such an illogical thing.

If you believe Christians are illogical because they are Christian, then you need to read something written by Ravi Zacharias, or William Lane Craig, or Gary Habermas, or C.S. Lewis or any of dozens of other scholarly, logical, Christian scientists and philosophers.

I do have personal issues with those who respond to this as simply 'Because god loves us' or similar. It strikes me that this people have absolute unshakable belief in God. They will not look at things logically or reasonably and instead choose to simply ignore what has been said and continue to do what they do. These people are too extremist IMO.

You are demonstrating the very same kind of extremist behaviour in holding to your flawed perspective as you are accusing Christians of doing.

As for the metaphoric status of the bible, I would ask why god chooses not to present us with the full picture - and if this part of the bible is metaphorical, then why not other parts - such as the existence of jesus or hell or Christianity itself ?

What do you think the "full picture" is like for an infinite God? Do you really think as a finite creature you could comprehend it? And why should God give you the whole picture? Many people are going along just fine without it. More than this, however, God intends that we would "walk by faith" with Him. Having the whole picture would interfere with doing so, I would think.

Peace.

 

[ebia]

This will be a long post. I want to vent all my opinions - hope you dont mind.

Why do you believe in God when there is so much logical and physical evidence for Evolution, and the bible itself is such a contradictory and ridiculous book?

God and evolution are not in opposition.

The bible states that god made Adam of the earth, and Eve from Adam.

In a story that is not about the actual mechanics of God's creation but about how creation is meant to be and why it isn't like that in practice.

If we do not take this literally, then what can we take literally?

Bit's that are literal. Language doesn't work like that - you cannot just assume everything is literal as some kind of default. Indeed, at some level all language is metaphoric.

And if this is gods word, then wouldn't he add to it as needed? Wouldn't he, for instance, return jesus to the earth to update the bible?

Our bit of the story doesn't need documenting in that way.

As for the metaphoric status of the bible, I would ask why god chooses not to present us with the full picture -

You seem to buy into the irrational assertion that literal statements of facts are somehow superior to metaphors.

and if this part of the bible is metaphorical, then why not other parts - such as the existence of jesus or hell or Christianity itself ?

Do you actually want to explore what one might mean by saying each of those is a metaphor and to what extent it would or would not be true of each?

 

[Coralie]

Before you jump on religion as illogical, remember that the scientific method is as flawed as anything else that has been created by man.

I quote a scientist I'm acquainted with (this is from an excellent post he made recently on CF, which you can read here in its entirety):

There is a strong strain of reductionism that has afflicted science since the late-19th century in particular. Today we see it in guys like Dawkins, or in neurobiology with claims that human=mind=brain=computer. Reductionitis is often presented to the popular imagination as the only way to be "scientific." But in fact reductionism was debunked pretty well around the middle of the 20th century. Still, the tendency to think this way persists and causes problems, leading to ideas that science is not in accord with any faith tradition.

Just remember that the creed of the reductionists, "Physics is the only true metaphysics," is a non-scientific statement, though reductionist proponents have often tried to argue otherwise. It is, rather, a statement of pure metaphysics, and should be evaluated as such. One exercise for the mind is to attempt to prove the scientific method using nothing more than scientific method. I've tried many times, but it can't be done to my knowledge. Ultimately the rational inquirer into scientific method must conclude a few things:

1) None of the proposed bases for why science "works" provide either necessary or sufficient conditions for proof. Verificationism, falsifiability, and so forth are all reasonable proposals that have much value, but they also have rather large holes in them when closely examined. Ultimately, the honest philosopher of science must admit that "science just seems to work, and on that basis alone we can trust it as a method." My preferred definition of science is "a systematic method or methods of trial and error."

2) Science is an algorithmic process that appears (based on direct observation) to be effective in discerning truths from falsehoods in many domains of inquiry, and can therefore be said to be a "truth-seeking" endeavor, and should be affirmed as such by anyone interested in truth. However, the algorithm(s) does not lead inevitably to truth, and is certainly subject to all the usual human biases (e.g., confirmation bias), so caution and humility must always be uppermost when deciding whether to accept particular results. Science, done properly, exhibits all the best traits that the saints display in their inquiries into God -- that is, truth-seeking, humble, open to change and experience, cautious, careful, dedicated, disciplined, etc.

3) Scientific method only appears to be efficacious when applied to those domains for which direct or measurable observations are most accessible, and is therefore limited by an empirical condition. Many scientists work in pure theory, but ultimately theory needs empirical grounding to be accepted as "doing science," or at least theory needs the possibility of being empirically grounded at some time, even if in the far future. However, agnosticism-for-life is not really a valid world-view, as we all must actually live the life we are given. Lack of knowledge about what the future of science may bring is not sufficient reason to delay finding a coherent world-view model that is life-affirming, inspiring (in the spirit), and productive.

4) Empiricism alone does not explain the most important question of our human existence, that is, the brute fact of the human knower and observer who can make truth statements about the cosmos. Think about how amazing it is that before life came into existence, there was just matter, and before conscious humanity, there was no cosmic knower. Leaving aside the existence of a knowing God who stands beyond the cosmos yet infuses it, we can observe that there has been a progression from matter (including energy and information), to life, to mind, and, I would argue, ultimately to spirit. In other words, the cosmos itself (of which we are its crown, to our knowledge) shows an evolution to higher states. Therefore science alone cannot explain YOU. Rather it is the other way around. Science does not justify us, We justify science.

What all this implies for the scientist is that there must be a broader metaphysical context or world-view that can justify the efficacy and value of scientific inquiry. Exactly what that world-view might be is something scientists don't know, as the methods of science are not applicable to metaphysics. Many leading scientists and mathematicians are or have been intensely interested in these questions, whether they ever resolved them in their own mind or not.

Don't place your hope in science alone. It's much more flawed than you've been led to believe.

Personally, I reckon that evolution happened. But ultimately, what does it matter? That proves nothing about the nature of the universe one way or the other. Be careful not to jump to conclusions...

Good luck on your search for the truth. It's an honourable goal.

C

 

[freeport]

This will be a long post. I want to vent all my opinions - hope you dont mind.

Why do you believe in God when there is so much logical and physical evidence for Evolution, and the bible itself is such a contradictory and ridiculous book?

The Bible is hardly ridiculous. I would like to see you write something as powerful as it. Try reading Romans then create something equivalent.

The Bible is the backbone of the great art in the Western world.

I watched a guy on television tonight talk about "Angels & Demons"... he actually claimed the Bible was a "hodgepodge" taken from various sources. Entirely absurd and showed he had never even dared read it.

Dare read it. Key sentence there. Why don't such critics even dare read it.

Revelation standing alone without any religious belief shows it as a powerful, poetic and very beautiful story. All of the Bible is extremely moving, consistent, powerful... and very poetic.

Even if I didn't consider it true, I would consider it profound stuff.

Unless I had not read it.

A lot of people approach matters with a skeptical attitude. "I am not believing this". Because they are scared to consider it for some reason.

So, they instead never do, and only consider arguments against it... even though they know these criticisms are intrinsically biased.

You see this especially in politics... all the time. People don't care about the truth so often. They want bias. They want reinforcement of pre-existing beliefs -- not challenges.


As for contradictions... people can make contradictions out of anything people say, if they try. But if they are not there they are treating the words dishonestly.

I can say two things that seem to be contradictions... if misread or heard. But they are not. Everybody does this. Especially when someone is seeking intentionally to find contradictions... though they are not really there.