Creation and atheists

[tansy]

This question is basically aimed at atheists.

I don't know if this would be difficult for you to imagine...but, if you could take as a hypothisis that God actually DOES exist, and that He DID create everythign at some point in the past (or at least the MAKINGS of everything, if you understand what I mean), how would you then approach the question of evolution?
(I amnot taking sides on this discussion, only that as a Christian, I believe God DID create everything, am just not sure HOW...I understand natural selection, but am stillunsure about the rest)

Do you think your view of evolution might change, or how do you think you might reconcile the Scriptural account with science?
I know there are plenty of theistic evolutionists who do this, but wondered if any atheist could imagine doing it (particularly I know that many of you have read Genesis and so forth).

 

[Hespera]

First off...It is not a bit difficult to imagine!

If it were demonstrable that there is a god, and that I could somehow get an idea of the nature of that god, whether it had expectations of me etc and so on, then that would change pretty much everything about my life.

But if god is just a hypothesis, I dont think that would change anything at all about my approach.

A person should always be open and alert to any new information, evidence, data whatever you want to call it, in life. In science especially that is true.

If something came up that just didnt seem like it could be anything but the work of (a) god, then I'd want to really focus in on that. And hey, if it pans out, if the more you look the more it has to be god, well.... now we are talking a discovery of the absolutely first magnitude!

As for reconciling the scriptural account with actual on the ground observation, I personally dont think that can be done. I dont think it needs to be done. I could believe in God just fine without having to think that the people who wrote the Bible were construcitng some sort of legal document that had to every comma and period be Truth.

If it is ncessary to square evolution with the biblical acccoouunntt (there, that will get past the word checker) in order for Christianity to be valid well, out goes Christianity. Along all the other creation myths of all the other peoples of the earth.

f one wants to take it that God created the universe, set everything going and then sat back to watch, knowing what would happen, and let nature takes its course.... why not.

 

[Jester4kicks]

If it is ncessary to square evolution with the biblical aco[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] in order for Christianity to be valid well, out goes Christianity.

I just realized how Hespera misspelled the word "account".

 

[tansy]

Thanks Hespera - yes, that's how a lot of Christians think...and actually, personally, I think there's a lot more to Genesis than meets the eye. It's just God hasn't laid everything out exactly, and crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is

 

[tansy]

I just realized how Hespera misspelled the word "account".

Oh my goodness yes...thought that was a bit weird..didn't think Hespera would deliberately post anything unseemly! Oops.

 

[Hespera]

I just realized how Hespera misspelled the word "account".

Oh my... look who is red faced.

 

[tansy]

Oh my... look who is red faced.

 

[Ectezus]

if you could take as a hypothisis that God actually DOES exist

It depends on if you mean absolute knowledge (hypothetically) or just my own opinion.

If god would show up in public and performs impossible (not for him obviously) miracles and everyone else around the world acknowledges this then: I would believe in a god (what religion though?) and politely ask him to explain how it's possible that all the evidence suggests evolution happened instead of him poofing us into existence.

On the other hand if I personally had a revelation because of a personal experience I might start believing but this personal experience can also mean I was incredibly high or have a metal disorder so there's no way to be sure.
It's kinda like Near-death experiences... Your brain is shutting down and people wonder why you start seeing crazy things... Isn't it obvious?

Everything you see/hear/smell/taste/feel is processed by your brain. Brains malfunction all the time. Therefore personal experiences don't mean much. Certainly not as evidence for anything.

However to answer your question; I'm assuming you meant the second scenario I described, ie: me personally believing.
I would adopt AVET's strategy to ignore every piece of evidence and base my whole life on the "GOD DID IT - THAT SETTLES IT!!!" philosophy. Although unlike him I would probably not go on a forum and get into debates with that philosophy.

- Ectezus

 

[Jester4kicks]

This question is basically aimed at atheists.

I don't know if this would be difficult for you to imagine...but, if you could take as a hypothisis that God actually DOES exist, and that He DID create everythign at some point in the past (or at least the MAKINGS of everything, if you understand what I mean), how would you then approach the question of evolution?
(I amnot taking sides on this discussion, only that as a Christian, I believe God DID create everything, am just not sure HOW...I understand natural selection, but am stillunsure about the rest)

Do you think your view of evolution might change, or how do you think you might reconcile the Scriptural account with science?
I know there are plenty of theistic evolutionists who do this, but wondered if any atheist could imagine doing it (particularly I know that many of you have read Genesis and so forth).

The problem with adding in the supernatural is that it becomes difficult to determine where you draw the line.

If god exists and he created everything:
-Did he simply "spark" the big bang, and everything just fell into place from there?
-Did he simply set the basic physical laws of the universe and everything that has happened since that time is a result of those laws?
-Did he magically "poof" everything into existence? If so, at what level of development did he do this, and what role has he had, if any, in guiding development of all things since that time?
-Did he actually do everything exactly and literally as it was written in the bible? If so, which version of the bible? For that matter, which worldly religion got the tale correct in their particular text?

Honestly, I would be thrilled if we could scientifically account for an additional "force's" role in the development of our universe. It would have amazing implications for the entire scientific community, not to mention the other fields of study that would be impacted by whatever evidence had prompted this realization!

Until then though, we can only make scientific observations regarding the physical world, based on the evidence gathered to support or refute our hypotheses. To do otherwise is to completely negate the purpose of science.

 

[tansy]

It depends on if you mean absolute knowledge (hypothetically) or just my own opinion.

If god would show up in public and performs impossible (not for him obviously) miracles and everyone else around the world acknowledges this then: I would believe in a god (what religion though?) and politely ask him to explain how it's possible that all the evidence suggests evolution happened instead of him poofing us into existence

.

TTTTTTTTTTOr might you think that He poofed the basic requirements of the universe into exisyence (I'm not sure what the absolute basic requirements are) beyond atoms, or the nucleii of atoms), and then left the rest to evolution, either by itself, or guided somehow by Him.
Or do you think that somehow, His blueprint could have included exact parameters for the development of the universe and everything in it?TTTTTTT

On the other hand if I personally had a revelation because of a personal experience I might start believing but this personal experience can also mean I was incredibly high or have a metal disorder so there's no way to be sure.
It's kinda like Near-death experiences... Your brain is shutting down and people wonder why you start seeing crazy things... Isn't it obvious?

Everything you see/hear/smell/taste/feel is processed by your brain. Brains malfunction all the time. Therefore personal experiences don't mean much. Certainly not as evidence for anything.

However to answer your question; I'm assuming you meant the second scenario I described, ie: me personally believing.
I would adopt AVET's strategy to ignore every piece of evidence and base my whole life on the "GOD DID IT - THAT SETTLES IT!!!" philosophy. Although unlike him I would probably not go on a forum and get into debates with that philosophy.

- Ectezus

I can't see you doing that...I.m sure you'd have to at least attempt to square evrything!
It would actually be really interesting, if you ever DID believe, to see what you thought then, and how you would approach things....let me know if you ever do

Sorry, seemed to have done the quote thingy wron again...in amongst the rest of your post, I ask another question, if you can find it. Have just put some re Ts round my question so you know which bit's me

 

[sbvera13]

Thanks Hespera - yes, that's how a lot of Christians think...and actually, personally, I think there's a lot more to Genesis than meets the eye. It's just God hasn't laid everything out exactly, and crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is

You might be interested in this post- quite an eye opener and a kick in the teeth for those who want to read the bible as a mere description of events instead of as poetry.

 

[sbvera13]

In response to the original question: It's easy to describe how to do. We take what we know, from experience, god does when he is creating. Then we extrapolate what he was likely to do with evolution.

The problem is there is nothing we know, from experience, about how god creates. Every single aspect of the world we have discovered so far can be traced back and understood through natural processess... which means if God did do any creating, he had to have created the processes themselves. And if god created the universe by putting these natural laws in place and letting the universe grow naturally- guess what, evolution is one of the results of that. So in the end it still comes back to evolution being exactly what it's like today.

The only alternative is to believe what the bible says about creation, and not what the creation says about itself, and that's just messy.

 

[Jester4kicks]

In response to the original question: It's easy to describe how to do. We take what we know, from experience, god does when he is creating. Then we extrapolate what he was likely to do with evolution.

The problem is there is nothing we know, from experience, about how god creates. Every single aspect of the world we have discovered so far can be traced back and understood through natural processess... which means if God did do any creating, he had to have created the processes themselves. And if god created the universe by putting these natural laws in place and letting the universe grow naturally- guess what, evolution is one of the results of that. So in the end it still comes back to evolution being exactly what it's like today.

The only alternative is to believe what the bible says about creation, and not what the creation says about itself, and that's just messy.

Isn't logic fun?!

Good analysis. Rep for you!

 

[tansy]

The problem with adding in the supernatural is that it becomes difficult to determine where you draw the line.

If god exists and he created everything:
-Did he simply "spark" the big bang, and everything just fell into place from there?
-Did he simply set the basic physical laws of the universe and everything that has happened since that time is a result of those laws?
-Did he magically "poof" everything into existence? If so, at what level of development did he do this, and what role has he had, if any, in guiding development of all things since that time?
-Did he actually do everything exactly and literally as it was written in the bible? If so, which version of the bible? For that matter, which worldly religion got the tale correct in their particular text?

Honestly, I would be thrilled if we could scientifically account for an additional "force's" role in the development of our universe. It would have amazing implications for the entire scientific community, not to mention the other fields of study that would be impacted by whatever evidence had prompted this realization!

Until then though, we can only make scientific observations regarding the physical world, based on the evidence gathered to support or refute our hypotheses. To do otherwise is to completely negate the purpose of science.

Well, yes, you've hit all the nails on the head...but of course, if one of the additional "forces" IS God, then I think He does stand outside the realms of science, from a purely physical standpoint. However, belief in God does not stop one investigating His creation...it's just, as you said..in a way, how far back, or how deeply can one investigate.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Well, yes, you've hit all the nails on the head...but of course, if one of the additional "forces" IS God, then I think He does stand outside the realms of science, from a purely physical standpoint. However, belief in God does not stop one investigating His creation...it's just, as you said..in a way, how far back, or how deeply can one investigate.

Pretty much. It's also important to remember that science cannot make any statements regarding the reason or purpose of our existence (aside from the obvious "there is no apparent reason or purpose").

That's where the realm of philosophy and theology enters the picture.

If you want to study the physical universe, turn to science. If you want to consider the deeper questions of existence and meaning, turn to philosophy and theology.

 

[tansy]

You might be interested in this post- quite an eye opener and a kick in the teeth for those who want to read the bible as a mere description of events instead of as poetry.

Thanks for the link...I think I probably broadly agree with it..however, I think (and I am not a scientist, so I don't know), that possibly in a general sense, science could be fitted into it. After all, if you take the waters and the chaos as all the gases etc, then maybe it would fit?

Also, isn't possible to have light without an actual sun and moon?

However, I will look at it a bit more closely later, as I'm cooking at the moment, so I havent had a proper chance to look at it yet.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Thanks for the link...I think I probably broadly agree with it..however, I think (and I am not a scientist, so I don't know), that possibly in a general sense, science could be fitted into it. After all, if you take the waters and the chaos as all the gases etc, then maybe it would fit?

Also, isn't possible to have light without an actual sun and moon?

However, I will look at it a bit more closely later, as I'm cooking at the moment, so I havent had a proper chance to look at it yet.

Light requires a light source. Granted, certain gases and other elements will produce light when energy passes through them (think florescent bulbs or heated metals)... but light still has to have a source.

As for "fitting" science into the story of creation... why would you want or need to? If your faith is dependant on cooberating evidence in the physical world, then you've reduced your creator to little more than a god-of-the-gaps... and you've actually set yourself up for disappointment as those gaps begin to get smaller and smaller.

From the other side of things, if your understanding of the physical world is supplemented by the supernatural, you are doing yourself an equal disservice by ceasing to look for answers in areas where you have decided the supernatural provides the explanation.

If you need or want your faith... have it. Just don't try to reconcile it with actual evidence because you will force yourself to compromise somewhere.

 

[juvenissun]

In response to the original question: It's easy to describe how to do. We take what we know, from experience, god does when he is creating. Then we extrapolate what he was likely to do with evolution.

The problem is there is nothing we know, from experience, about how god creates. Every single aspect of the world we have discovered so far can be traced back and understood through natural processess... which means if God did do any creating, he had to have created the processes themselves. ...

This is absolutely wrong. Have you said that science is about understanding, which is falsifiable? If falsifiable, then it means we do not really understand. In fact, as I always said, we understand nothing, zero. That is what science have taught us.

 

[Jester4kicks]

This is absolutely wrong. Have you said that science is about understanding, which is falsifiable? If falsifiable, then it means we do not really understand. In fact, as I always said, we understand nothing, zero. That is what science have taught us.

Glad to see you back, Juv. This section needs more comic relief.

 

[juvenissun]

If you want to study the physical universe, turn to science. If you want to consider the deeper questions of existence and meaning, turn to philosophy and theology.

So are you suggesting a historian would know nothing about existence and meaning? And a musician knows nothing about the physical universe? And an uneducated farmer is absolutely dumb?