Bottom line: Can a Christian believe in evolution and still be saved?

[Rachel20]

The problem is that most theists do not understand what atheism is. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god. It is a broad tent, just as theism is a broad tent. Almost all agnostics are atheists. So are the "nones". Many people do not want to admit that they are atheists because of the historical stigma of the word, though more and more are snow saying, "OH, it just means not believing in a God, not that a God does not exist? Then I am an atheist too".

I get that's the claim. But since you're into proofs, can you prove it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is Euclidean geometry an argument from ignorance? It's based on postulates that can't be proven. Most of science, is in fact, based on inductive reasoning. Why apply a different standard to the question of God? Last time I checked the NASA site, everything we believe about the universe is based on only 5% of it that can be directly observed. This is why I don't offer "proofs" of God, and I doubt you'll ever find one. No reasoning about a being greater than ourselves could be deductive, as that would require we be greater than that being.

No. It is mathematics. Something quite different from reality. That is one weird argument.

By the way, I do not offer refutations of God either. The burden of proof is always upon a person that says that something exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get that's the claim. But since you're into proofs, can you prove it?

Wrong, I am not into "proofs". Whatever led you to that conclusion? I am into evidence. And I can provide evidence for my claims.

 

[Rachel20]

Wrong, I am not into "proofs". Whatever led you to that conclusion? I am into evidence. And I can provide evidence for my claims.

Your quote in post #116 "What theists never seem to understand is that the burden of proof that a God exists is on them."

 

[Rachel20]

That is one weird argument.

You brought up proofs, but I can understand the desire to backpeddal now

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your quote in post #116 "What theists never seem to understand is that the burden of proof that a God exists is on them."

I see, do you understand basic English? When someone say that the burden of proof is upon someone that is a reference to evidence. There is no absolute "proof" so your use of the term without a qualifier was incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You brought up proofs, but I can understand the desire to backpeddal now

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Please no personal attacks. You made an error. You could not understand a basic phrase. Your problem may have been that you appear to be thinking to literally. What do you think that the "burden of proof" means?

 

[Rachel20]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Please no personal attacks.

I didn't intend a personal attack. I'm sure you didn't either when you asked if I understood basic English

 

[Rachel20]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Please no personal attacks. You made an error. You could not understand a basic phrase. Your problem may have been that you appear to be thinking to literally. What do you think that the "burden of proof" means?

Let's start over. When you ask for "evidence", what do you have in mind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't intend a personal attack. I'm sure you didn't either when you asked if I understood basic English

Your misunderstanding did imply that. But let me help you without any accusations:

Having the "burden of proof" means that the person that has that burden must provide evidence that supports their claims.

In the legal world the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That does not mean that anyone convicted of a crime is absolutely guilty. New evidence does rarely turn up and convictions are over turned. It only means that there is enough evidence that it would be unreasonable to think that the person was innocent.

By the way, anyone that accepts any conviction as reasonable also has to accept evolution by the same standard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's start over. When you ask for "evidence", what do you have in mind?

The evidence required would depend upon the claim. What claim are you asking about?

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Rachel20]

I dont think that follows or makes sense

The poster brought up proofs, and my mind moved to logical proofs, not material evidences. My thoughts do make sense though I tend to jump from A to D without laying out clearly the connecting points. That's my bad, but it's a form of impatience I guess.

 

[Rachel20]

The evidence required would depend upon the claim. What claim are you asking about?

Let's go with the claim God exists. If I can't offer material (natural) evidence of a supernatural claim, what would the evidence consist of?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go with the claim God exists. If I can't offer material (natural) evidence of a supernatural claim, what would the evidence consist of?

I do not know. It is your claim. You need to find the appropriate evidence. If someone asked me what the correct evidence for evolution would be I could tell them and why. If I was to try to tell you what was required I would be apt to make various strawman claims and I do not want to do that. I want to be fair.

 

[Rachel20]

I do not know. It is your claim. You need to find the appropriate evidence. If someone asked me what the correct evidence for evolution would be I could tell them and why. If I was to try to tell you what was required I would be apt to make various strawman claims and I do not want to do that. I want to be fair.

Evidence for the existence of a Spirit (God is Spirit) would be nonmaterial? Something not inherent in matter/energy/space/time? Maybe something like information?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for the existence of a Spirit (God is Spirit) would be nonmaterial? Something not inherent in matter/energy/space/time? Maybe something like information?

"Information" does not appear to need a God either. At least no one with a belief in God has ever found a reason why. Once again, it is your claim, I am not the one to tell you what evidence you should have. I can only analyze the evidence that you produce and explain if it is valid or not. Why it is valid or not would be a key part of my duty if you did provide what you claimed to be evidence. I could not just hand wave it away.

 

[disciple Clint]

Sure, but only if it pertains to time frames however, if it spills into "kinds", then there is a division that can not be reconciled. Those made "God's image " have a specific role to play in creation. The Father's greatest desire to have a spiritual union with mankind, if one is willing to choose Him.
Blessings

Could I not say that God included evolution in His plan but when the first two humans evolved he put a soul in them that was made in the image of God. I am not endorsing this idea but some scholars have proposed it.

 

[renniks]

The put-upon man will be exalted? That's a pretty common theme in literature past and present. Doesn't seem very "obviously about Jesus" to me.

The Messianic Jews say that Isaiah 53 isn't read in synogogue because it's so obviously about Jesus.
The only people who don't see it is about the crucifixion are those who don't want it to be.

 

[renniks]

No, they merely fit your idea of Jesus. The Jews, you know, the religion that wrote that, do not agree with you on your interpretation. One has to reinterpret it to say that it is Jesus since it in no way directly refers to him.

Oh please!
You would have to deliberately ignore the obvious implications to miss it.
And the Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah are quick to point to Isaiah 53.