Creation or Evolution?

[tov]

I found the Missing Link...

Link to: The Missing Link

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is the evolution of the word "evolved".

But some day we will all speak the language of the FATHER in our death beds.

The language of the FATHER sounds just like a death rattle.

There's an omen in there somewhere...

 

[Starstreak M86]

I think that they meant praying to God on our death beds. Not literally speaking like God. (I'm not sure if God has His own language, or if Humans will let alone ever be able to speak it).

 

[hereIam2Worship]

well...i'm sure we will all speak the same language in heaven...maybe arameic or a missing language only spoken by God or something

 

[Gracchus]

well...i'm sure we will all speak the same language in heaven...maybe arameic or a missing language only spoken by God or something

Actually, in heaven we all speak mathematics.

 

[Starstreak M86]

Actually, in heaven we all speak mathematics.

Maybe God's language is mathematics then!

 

[hereIam2Worship]

Yes. exactly. that is why idiot can not understand him or what he wants us to know

 

[lucaspa]

If you say that the universe has a cause but God does not require a cause is a contradiction.

Trace the chain of cause and effect back and you must get to an Uncaused Cause that starts the chain. That is First Cause. First Cause does not require a cause itself. Now, the universe does require a cause, but First Cause, by its very nature, does not.

I think we've been around this corner before but you still have not been able to give a logical explanation for an uncaused God. Maybe he or she or it was indirectly created? That could be the other option.

Or arose by chance. Or always existed. You don't have a logical explanation for an uncaused Big Bang, either, do you? But Big Bang cannot be First Cause. Big Bang itself must have had a cause. Whether that uncaused cause was God or quantum fluctuations, you still have an ucaused cause. If quantum fluctuations is First Cause, what caused them?

The failure here really is trying to use an unanswered question at a deeper layer to say an answer at a higher layer is impossible. Can't do that. If you insist that this is valid, all of science falls apart. For instance, in stem cell biology the stem cell divides asymmetrically such that one daughter cell enters a phenotype lineage and one remains a stem cell. What causes the asymmetric cell division? We don't know. But not knowing that does not mean that stem cells don't exist.

You like a puppetmaster God, don't you? What you are proposing is a control freak that steps in and makes the universe perfectly nice for us, with nothing "bad" in it. What you miss is that such a control freak god is not one that anyone can worship. It's a tryrant micromanipulating our lives to get only what that god wants.

When did I ever say I like such a God?

Don't play coy. The control freak God is the one you are proposing that stops all "bad" things from happening.

However, It seems very evident that there are millions of people on this planet who are worshiping that very micromanipulative God as we speak only difference is He uses a different means of control, it's called fear and coersion. If you don't believe in him you get tormented in hell forever.

Apples and oranges from your original position. Your original position involved manipulating the physical universe and our thoughts such that we could not choose to hurt someone. This one involves a god that provides consequences for a choice. But it doesn't dictate the choice. After all, you can choose, like you, to refrain from worship.

Do you have some proof that your so called God exists? I'm willing to examine your evidence.

I'm not trying to convince you God exists. I really don't want you in Christianity. Christianity has enough dogmatic fanatics around using bad reasoning -- Ham, Hovind, Morris, Johnson, etc. Christianity doesn't need another one.

Instead, I'm examining your arguments about theism and Christianity.

Now, let's examine the contention of God using intimidation to get people to believe:
1. The situation may not be real. After all, the position you laid out is Fundamentalism, not mainline Christianity. Since Fundamentalism is false idol worship, they could easily have gotten this part as wrong as they got the false idol wrong.
2. God could be just enumerating consequences. It would be like me telling my kids when they were small: "Run out into the street and you will get hit by a car." Is that intimidation or just a truthful listing of the consequence? So, fail to accept God in your life and you end up in Hell. Your choice, just as it is still the choice of my child to run out into the street.
3. Hell may not be a place of torment for the sake of torment. Niven and Pournelle in their re-write of Inferno proposed a very interesting hypothesis: Hell is an asylum for the theologically insane. IOW, having failed to get your attention all thru life, God is trying to get your attention afterward.
4. Hell may be a human invention borne out of our desire for justice. That is, we can see people choosing to harm others, being selfish, etc. and apparently suffering no punishment in this life. So they projected their desires for justice and invented punishment in the next, putting words in God's mouth.

I don't know nothing about the age of your children but assuming they are only little children and not knowing any better would you just let them run out in the middle of the street in front of a truck without trying to save them from harm? Or would you just say, you don't want to be a puppetmaster dad?

1. But how do I try to save them? I call out to them, I may even physically block them. But I do not manipulate their life so that there is no possibility that they run out into the street! That is, I don't keep them in a fenced in yard or tied up so that their other freedom is limited nor do I brainwash them so that they can't even consider running into the street. It is this type of interference you want God to do. And that is control freak.
2. Now, God does try to save you, doesn't He? He sends messages to people -- calls out to them -- thru scripture and personal experiences. However, like a little child refusing to heed the call of a parent, you can continue to run into the street, can't you?

Or is it just a belief that you have ?

Of course it is a belief I have! Theists don't claim anything different. Belief is not a dirty word. Come November, you are going to walk into a voting booth and vote for President, aren't you? You are going to place your belief of who you think will do the better job of being President! You won't have any scientific studies to back you, will you? Most of our lives are lived by beliefs. What you are saying is that beliefs are unreasonable and without evidence. That's not true. If you think about it, your belief in atheism consists of more than "there is no evidence for the existence of God", doesn't it? If that is all you have, then you are screwed. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Hmmm, but I thought that the God you believe in is the one pulling some sort of strings by supernaturally holding the universe all together ?

The belief is that the material causes are insufficient as causes. That is, the material causes by themselves won't cause an event to happen. A supernatural component is required. This means that, without God, oxygen and hydrogen don't combust to form water. What you want is for this combustion to happen only when it is beneficial, such as in a fuel cell or rocket engine. But when the consequence is going hurt someone, such as in the Hindenburg's gas bags, God is supposed to step in and stop it. But doing that removes the consequences of the decisions of people to 1) build hydrogen airships in the first place, 2) decide to take one for transportation, and 3) decide to bring the Hindenburg in during a thunderstorm. By stopping the reaction, God would deprive the lives of those people of meaning.

Do you have a book that desribes this God you believe in ?

This is the Biblical God. I haven't said anything that isn't part of mainline Christianity. It may not be part of Fundamentalism, but Fundamentalism isn't all of Christianity. Or, you can also look at the argument in more depth in Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God.

No I never said I wanted a cosmic tyrant as a God that is why I am no longer a Christian and now an atheist.

But you are advocating such a deity and arguing that Yahweh is such a deity. Inconsistent a bit, are we?

BTW, I'm not big on abbreviations, I usually spell out what I say, so what is SOL ?

s-h-dot your i - t out of luck.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa, why dont you write a book on this subject, then instead of repeating your self every day, just say: "buy my book!"

im dead serious, or have you already perhaps?

Thank you, but I haven't. I still have too many papers to finish.

Besides, I like the personal contact rather than the generalities of a book.

 

[franklin]

Trace the chain of cause and effect back and you must get to an Uncaused Cause that starts the chain. That is First Cause. First Cause does not require a cause itself. Now, the universe does require a cause, but First Cause, by its very nature, does not.

I have to really hand it to ya luc, I thought the fundamentalists were the one's who had the monopoly on creativity when it comes explaining away these things but I think you have taken first place, and your explanation not only doesn't explain anything but it still doesn't explain who caused the alleged supernatural/transcendant God. The God that does not exist.

It's obvious that man has caused God(s)

The situation may not be real. After all, the position you laid out is Fundamentalism, not mainline Christianity. Since Fundamentalism is false idol worship, they could easily have gotten this part as wrong as they got the false idol wrong.

Can you define for me the difference between fundamentalist Christianity vs mainline Christianity ? Does mainline Christianity (as you call it) believe in worship ? Is that not a form of idol worship ?

Are any of these two different versions of Xtianity have any more originality over the other ? Or are they both imports and recreations of the many Pagan religions that originated many years before?

 

[spiced]

define the phrase : "God is".
If one takes God out of the equation proceed with your theory of the origins of the earth.
Cause and effect based on what where and how.Where did the materials come from to give the ingredients for the origins in the first place.
If God is created by man, why do i submit myself to a creator being which is higher than I? Why do i know that He is a person, that is real? Why is there no way that you can emperically measure this "relationship" of a "Father God" that i have?
spiced

 

[Obertray]

define the phrase : "God is".

Definition: One of the many 'convenience arguments' used by christians.

If one takes God out of the equation proceed with your theory of the origins of the earth.

Big Bang -> Atomic formation -> Stellar formation -> Galactic Formation -> Planetary Formation (quite rough and grossly inaccuate, ask Jet Black, aka 'The Wise One' for further clarification)

Cause and effect based on what where and how.

Err, cause and effect based on cause and effect.

Where did the materials come from to give the ingredients for the origins in the first place.

Questions require question marks. See? The ingredients came from the big bang, like all other matter and energy in the universe did. What a silly question...

If God is created by man, why do i submit myself to a creator being which is higher than I?

[Insert witty repartee insulting your intelligence] Anyway, you submit to god because you think he isn't man-made. It would be silly to submit to it once you knew it was false...

Why do i know that He is a person, that is real?

You don't, you just think you do. You are mistaking it for something else, same goes for your relationship.

Why is there no way that you can emperically measure this "relationship" of a "Father God" that i have?

Because it isn't there.

 

[spiced]

OK obertray,
Big bang, where did its ingredients come from given that God is not in your equation?Go on get your diploma and your PhD and describe it to me.
spiced

 

[Ishmael Borg]

OK obertray,
Big bang, where did its ingredients come from given that God is not in your equation?Go on get your diploma and your PhD and describe it to me.
spiced

"First Cause" arguments don't seem to help theists or atheists that much (in my opinion).

 

[Data]

OK obertray,
Big bang, where did its ingredients come from given that God is not in your equation?Go on get your diploma and your PhD and describe it to me.
spiced

Cause and effect? Where did God come from then?

You're in no better position than anyone else. It's a pretty bad argument.

 

[The Son of Him]

Cause and effect? Where did God come from then?

You're in no better position than anyone else. It's a pretty bad argument.

It is the CENTRAL ARGUMENT.

I am still waiting for some one to adress the question how is it that a set of equations could justify itself to the point of bringing the universe and itself into existence ?

Where does God come from? Well since you do not think your theory of everything should justify itself , why do you think GOD has to justify himself to you?

 

[RoboMastodon]

It is the CENTRAL ARGUMENT.

I am still waiting for some one to adress the question how is it that a set of equations could justify itself to the point of bringing the universe and itself into existence ?

Where does God come from? Well since you do not think your theory of everything should justify itself , why do you think GOD has to justify himself to you?

The thing you have to realize (and many atheists to) is that every time you can say "goddidit", I can say "physicsdidit" except with physics once a hypothesis becomes a theory and its veracity is pretty certain (due to the explanatory power and emperical nature of physics) my "physicsdidit" becomes your "GodDidThePhysicsThatDidIt", which goes against Occam's Razor.
http://fyredev.com/images/ockhams.gif

 

[The Son of Him]

The thing you have to realize (and many atheists to) is that every time you can say "goddidit", I can say "physicsdidit" except with physics once a hypothesis becomes a theory and its veracity is pretty certain (due to the explanatory power and emperical nature of physics) my "physicsdidit" becomes your "GodDidThePhysicsThatDidIt", which goes against Occam's Razor.
http://fyredev.com/images/ockhams.gif

I agree , I belong to the camp that profeces " GodDidThePhysicsThatDitIt " .

Simply because I love physics and its beauty, I make the questions I make not to refute physics , but rather seeking my conversion to total atheism which will come about when some one can convince me of the argument " PhysicsDidThePhysicsThatDitIt"

And in regards of the Razor, I do not understand why GOD is annoying to him since it takes nothing out of his absolute thruth beacuse it seems to me that the razor is the only man in Earth capable of explaining the universe, life and everything in it.
And his slice maneuver is as arbitrary as a religious person profecing God.(But at least the latter can claim faith and derive moral teachings from his view)

 

[Data]

I am still waiting for some one to adress the question how is it that a set of equations could justify itself to the point of bringing the universe and itself into existence?

Indeed. You have exactly the same problem, and we neither have the answers. Until that point is reached, this argument does nothing for either side.

 

[RoboMastodon]

And his slice maneuver is as arbitrary as a religious person profecing God.(But at least the latter can claim faith and derive moral teachings from his view)

And I can claim faith in invisible pink unicorns and derive "moral teachings" from a book other than one written thousands of years ago by people in a completely different culture than ours. "God" has (currently) no explanatory power, physics does.